Officials at Glacier National Park making changes...

[et pet]

   

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

To provide an overview of the situation paraphrased as "meh, glaciers come and go, nothing to see here", is either being willfully ignorant or is indicative of an agenda such as FUD regarding ACC.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_glaciers_in_Glacier_National_Park_(U.S.)

                          List of glaciers in Glacier National Park (U.S.)                                                                                  There are at least 35 named glaciers in Glacier National Park (U.S.). At the end of the Little Ice Age about 1850, the area containing the national park had 150 glaciers. There are 25 active glaciers remaining in the park today. Since the latest interglacial period began 10,000 years ago, there have been regular climate shifts causing periods of glacier growth or melt-back. The glaciers are currently being studied to see the effect of global warming[1] It is estimated that if current warming trends continue, there will be no glaciers left in the park by 2030. "  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_glaciers_in_Glacier_National_Park_(U.S.)

 

     This was addressed in the OP :  http://www.alt-market.com/articles/3796-glacier-national-park-quietly-removes-its-gone-by-2020-signs

         " May 30, 2019. St. Mary, Montana. Officials at Glacier National Park (GNP) have begun quietly removing and altering signs and government literature which told visitors that the Park’s glaciers were all expected to disappear by either 2020 or 2030. 

           As recently as September 2018 the diorama displayed a sign saying GNP’s glaciers were expected to disappear completely by 2020. " http://www.alt-market.com/articles/3796-glacier-national-park-quietly-removes-its-gone-by-2020-signs

 

                                              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interglacial

           "An interglacial period (or alternatively interglacial, interglaciation) is a geological interval of warmer global average temperature lasting thousands of years that separates consecutive glacial periods within an ice age. The current Holocene interglacial began at the end of the Pleistocene, about 11,700 years ago."                                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interglacial

 

      How long might this interglacial period last?  https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-long-can-we-expect-present-interglacial-period-last?qt-news_science_products=0#qt-news_science_products   

       " How long can we expect the present Interglacial period to last?

   No one knows for sure. In the Devils Hole, Nevada, paleoclimate record, the last four interglacials lasted over ~20,000 years with the warmest portion being a relatively stable period of 10,000 to 15,000 years duration. This is consistent with what is seen in the Vostok ice core from Antarctica and several records of sea level high stands. These data suggest that an equally long duration should be inferred for the current interglacial period as well. Work in progress on Devils Hole data for the period 60,000 to 5,000 years ago indicates that current interglacial temperature conditions may have already persisted for 17,000 years. Other workers have suggested that the current interglacial might last tens of thousands of years.  "   https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-long-can-we-expect-present-interglacial-period-last?qt-news_science_products=0#qt-news_science_products

    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/abrupt-climate-change/Glacial-Interglacial Cycles

        " Glacial-Interglacial Cycles   

      Large, continental ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere have grown and retreated many times in the past. We call times with large ice sheets “glacial periods” (or ice ages) and times without large ice sheets “interglacial periods.” The most recent glacial period occurred between about 120,000 and 11,500 years ago. Since then, Earth has been in an interglacial period called the Holocene. Glacial periods are colder, dustier, and generally drier than interglacial periods. These glacial–interglacial cycles are apparent in many marine and terrestrial paleoclimate records from around the world.

      What causes glacial–interglacial cycles?

      Variations in Earth's orbit through time have changed the amount of solar radiation Earth receives in each season. Interglacial periods tend to happen during times of more intense summer solar radiation in the Northern Hemisphere. These glacial–interglacial cycles have waxed and waned throughout the Quaternary Period (the past 2.6 million years). Since the middle Quaternary, glacial–interglacial cycles have had a frequency of about 100,000 years (Lisiecki and Raymo 2005). In the solar radiation time series, cycles of this length (known as “eccentricity”) are present but are weaker than cycles lasting about 23,000 years (which are called “precession of the equinoxes”).  "   https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/abrupt-climate-change/Glacial-Interglacial Cycles

 

    We should all be in agreement that regardless of whether or not we can get a handle on Anthropogenic Climate Change, the Glacial–Interglacial Cycles will still continue!

And we should all be in agreement that regardless of whether or not we succeed in slowing, curbing or even completely eliminating Mankind's deleterious affect on Earth's Climate, the Glacial–Interglacial Cycles will still continue!

    Seriously, zapatos, anyone that cannot accept the Science of Glaciology, and see the Logic of the above two statements might just be that person that fits your description as "either being willfully ignorant or is indicative of an agenda." 

 

Edited June 13, 2019 by et pet

[beecee]

3 hours ago, beecee said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_glaciers_in_Glacier_National_Park_(U.S.)

"There are at least 35 named glaciers in Glacier National Park (U.S.). At the end of the Little Ice Age about 1850, the area containing the national park had 150 glaciers. There are 25 active glaciers remaining in the park today".

"It is estimated that if current warming trends continue, there will be no glaciers left in the park by 2030"

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/big-thaw/

"So far, the results have been positively chilling. 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."

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

Agreed.

The evidence also leads me to believe that using of the term "hysterical" to describe scientists' best estimate, or describing the Park Service as "hiding" the signs when data now suggests a change of timelines, is purposely ignoring the data and casting doubt on science in general.

To provide an overview of the situation paraphrased as "meh, glaciers come and go, nothing to see here", is either being willfully ignorant or is indicative of an agenda such as FUD regarding ACC.

 

 

Quite telling obviously that going from an estimate of 150 to around 30, is telling and should lead anyone no matter what doubts, that if we are going to err, we must err on the side of caution. And that fact of the reduction in glaciers, and that fact alone, gives plenty of reason for concern.

Not quite Montana, but certainly relative in such an important topic as climate change and the signs and effects.........

 

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/19/9239

Forty-six years of Greenland Ice Sheet mass balance from 1972 to 2018:

Significance:

We reconstruct the mass balance of the Greenland Ice Sheet for the past 46 years by comparing glacier ice discharge into the ocean with interior accumulation of snowfall from regional atmospheric climate models over 260 drainage basins. The mass balance started to deviate from its natural range of variability in the 1980s. The mass loss has increased sixfold since the 1980s. Greenland has raised sea level by 13.7 mm since 1972, half during the last 8 years.

Abstract:

We reconstruct the mass balance of the Greenland Ice Sheet using a comprehensive survey of thickness, surface elevation, velocity, and surface mass balance (SMB) of 260 glaciers from 1972 to 2018. We calculate mass discharge, D, into the ocean directly for 107 glaciers (85% of D) and indirectly for 110 glaciers (15%) using velocity-scaled reference fluxes. The decadal mass balance switched from a mass gain of +47 ± 21 Gt/y in 1972–1980 to a loss of 51 ± 17 Gt/y in 1980–1990. The mass loss increased from 41 ± 17 Gt/y in 1990–2000, to 187 ± 17 Gt/y in 2000–2010, to 286 ± 20 Gt/y in 2010–2018, or sixfold since the 1980s, or 80 ± 6 Gt/y per decade, on average. The acceleration in mass loss switched from positive in 2000–2010 to negative in 2010–2018 due to a series of cold summers, which illustrates the difficulty of extrapolating short records into longer-term trends. Cumulated since 1972, the largest contributions to global sea level rise are from northwest (4.4 ± 0.2 mm), southeast (3.0 ± 0.3 mm), and central west (2.0 ± 0.2 mm) Greenland, with a total 13.7 ± 1.1 mm for the ice sheet. The mass loss is controlled at 66 ± 8% by glacier dynamics (9.1 mm) and 34 ± 8% by SMB (4.6 mm). Even in years of high SMB, enhanced glacier discharge has remained sufficiently high above equilibrium to maintain an annual mass loss every year since 1998.

Edited June 13, 2019 by beecee

[iNow]

2 hours ago, et pet said:

We should all be in agreement that regardless of whether or not we can get a handle on Anthropogenic Climate Change, the Glacial–Interglacial Cycles will still continue!

Is your assertion that the cycles will continue unchanged, or just that they will continue?

2 hours ago, et pet said:

And we should all be in agreement that regardless of whether or not we succeed in slowing, curbing or even completely eliminating Mankind's deleterious affect on Earth's Climate, the Glacial–Interglacial Cycles will still continue!

How is this relevant? If we reach this consensus, what does it do for us / what question does it answer / what problem does it solve?

In other words, who cares?

[MigL]

For those of us who do care...

This video from PBS Digital Studios does an excellent job of describing the three cycles that affect the climate of our planet.
And gives some insight as to how human activity ( ACC ) may modify the cyclic nature of the expected climate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztninkgZ0ws

You can watch it if you are interested.
If not, who cares.

[iNow]

You care that we all here agree that glacial cycles on the earth will persist in the long-term?

Okay. Interesting. Why?

[MigL]

On the contrary...
An understanding of the climate cycles will give us a better understanding of how human activity is modifying those cycles.
In effect, those cycles may, or may not, persist.

I have to wonder why you do NOT care.

[iNow]

We’re talking past each other. He wants us to agree and that’s what I commented on.

You’re commenting on glaciers and their cycles more generally. That’s something different.

Further, we’re still waiting for a reply on the relevance.

It’s a bit like asking if we all agree eggs are being served for breakfast on the Titanic the morning after it sinks. Who cares?

Oops. Sorry. My bad. It’s not even that. It’s about the removal of some signs in a park. Clearly, some heady and critical stuff. 

Edited June 14, 2019 by iNow

[et pet]

3 hours ago, iNow said:

Is your assertion that the cycles will continue unchanged, or just that they will continue?

How is this relevant? If we reach this consensus, what does it do for us / what question does it answer / what problem does it solve?

In other words, who cares?

I said that the Glacial–Interglacial Cycles will still continue.

Relevance? How about : arguments should cease / can we reach agreement / inability to Successfully unite to achieve a common goal

Who cares?  Maybe : anyone seriously interested in completely eliminating Mankind's deleterious affect on Earth's Climate!

Edited June 14, 2019 by et pet

[iNow]

It was a simple question. Please answer it. 

Is your assertion that the cycles will continue unchanged?

OR

Is your assertion just that they will continue?

Pick one. 

[et pet]

3 hours ago, MigL said:

For those of us who do care...

This video from PBS Digital Studios does an excellent job of describing the three cycles that affect the climate of our planet.
And gives some insight as to how human activity ( ACC ) may modify the cyclic nature of the expected climate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztninkgZ0ws

You can watch it if you are interested.
If not, who cares.

Good find, MigL!  There is a lot of Real Science presented in less than 1000 seconds!   

Thanks for Link.

Edited June 14, 2019 by et pet

[iNow]

27 minutes ago, iNow said:

It was a simple question. Please answer it. 

Is your assertion that the cycles will continue unchanged?

OR

Is your assertion just that they will continue?

Pick one. 

Still waiting 

[beecee]

3 hours ago, iNow said:

Oops. Sorry. My bad. It’s not even that. It’s about the removal of some signs in a park. Clearly, some heady and critical stuff. 

Agreed, the attempted inference made with that was very silly. Human induced Climate change as well as that caused by natural Astronomical cycles is happening. I certainly hope no one is arguing against that!

3 hours ago, MigL said:

An understanding of the climate cycles will give us a better understanding of how human activity is modifying those cycles.

Also agreed, though some people seem to be having 2 bob each way and seem reluctant to clearly state that and answer questions.

3 hours ago, MigL said:

I have to wonder why you do NOT care.

I'm pretty sure iNow does care and he is supportive of reducing climate change due to human activity.

1 hour ago, et pet said:

Relevance? How about : arguments should cease / can we reach agreement / inability to Successfully unite to achieve a common goal

 : anyone seriously interested in completely eliminating Mankind's deleterious affect on Earth's Climate!

Great et pet!! It now appears we all have our hearts in the right place and behind the indisputable science behind human induced climate change, not withstanding probable expected errors in time frames. Although I'm not really sure we can eliminate all of Mankind's deleterious affects...Although there is nothing more that I would be glad to be wrong on.. 

58 minutes ago, iNow said:

Still waiting 

Yep, that certainly deserves a direct answer

Edited June 14, 2019 by beecee

[MigL]

I am simply not in favor of distorting evidence to further one's argument, BeeCee , iNow and Et Pet.

If the Park posted misleading signs to motivate people against ACC, I don't agree with the tactic.
( although I can certainly understand the reasoning behind it )

If Et Pet is using the fact that the signs are incorrect and have been removed to argue against ACC, I don't agree with that either.
( although I do agree that the cyclic nature of climate change will continue, but may be modified by ACC )

And I certainly didn't mean INow doesn't care about ACC; I know he's passionate about it.
I was referring to the inherent orbital causes of climate change ( as opposed to human activity causes of ACC ), to which he replied ( flippantly ) "who cares".
But I've got to ask BeeCee…
What does the expression "having 2 bob each way" actually mean ?

[iNow]

5 minutes ago, MigL said:

I was referring to the inherent orbital causes of climate change ( as opposed to human activity causes of ACC ), to which he replied ( flippantly ) "who cares".

Our OP was commenting on cycles of natural glacial growth and retreat, then specifically in quoted part to which I was replying whether posters to this thread agreed those natural cycles were a thing.

I believe unintentionally, but you're moving the goalposts by suggesting this was about "orbital causes of climate change." 

8 minutes ago, MigL said:

If the Park posted misleading signs to motivate people against ACC, I don't agree with the tactic.
( although I can certainly understand the reasoning behind it )

This is also now a new claim. What evidence suggests to you that there was a "tactic" employed here to purposely post "misleading signs to motivate people?" That's not something that is supported by the facts thus far presented.

Please introduce those facts now if this is an assertion you wish to have taken seriously. You're speaking to the motivations of the park staff, and further besmirching their intent. Why?

[dimreepr]

10 minutes ago, MigL said:

I am simply not in favor of distorting evidence to further one's argument, BeeCee , iNow and Et Pet.

If the Park posted misleading signs to motivate people against ACC, I don't agree with the tactic.
( although I can certainly understand the reasoning behind it )

If Et Pet is using the fact that the signs are incorrect and have been removed to argue against ACC, I don't agree with that either.
( although I do agree that the cyclic nature of climate change will continue, but may be modified by ACC )

And I certainly didn't mean INow doesn't care about ACC; I know he's passionate about it.
I was referring to the inherent orbital causes of climate change ( as opposed to human activity causes of ACC ), to which he replied ( flippantly ) "who cares".
But I've got to ask BeeCee…
What does the expression "having 2 bob each way" actually mean ?

I'm sure Venus had a similar bet...

[MigL]

You do know what "If" means, don't you INow ?
Seriously, who's moving goalposts ?

And as an example of well intentioned motivation, but ultimately wrong, I present Dimreepr's post...
The earth cannot become like Venus.
Implying that ACC on Earth will make it like Venus, IS presenting misleading information.
( and if that's not what Dimreepr meant, I apologize. I never know with his replies )

Edited June 14, 2019 by MigL

[et pet]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

If Et Pet is using the fact that the signs are incorrect and have been removed to argue against ACC, I don't agree with that either.
( although I do agree that the cyclic nature of climate change will continue, but may be modified by ACC )

   MigL, I have never argued against Anthropogenic Climate Change.

  I only Posted the article in my Original Post, : http://www.alt-market.com/articles/3796-glacier-national-park-quietly-removes-its-gone-by-2020-signs , I did not Author that article.

I clearly stated what I thought about the Park Officials changing or removing Literature and Exhibits when I Posted:

  " I found it interesting that the Officials at Glacier National Park were even going to the trouble of changing or removing anything. A majority of visitors to the Park would probably never even notice the things that the Officials were changing or removing. Why not leave the Literature and Interactive exhibits as they were? Personally, I am quite sure that the funds that were used could have been put to much better use."

Edited June 14, 2019 by et pet

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

You do know what "If" means, don't you INow ?
Seriously, who's moving goalposts ?

And as an example of well intentioned motivation, but ultimately wrong, I present Dimreepr's post...
The earth cannot become like Venus.
Implying that ACC on Earth will make it like Venus, IS presenting misleading information.
( and if that's not what Dimreepr meant, I apologize. I never know with his replies )

I didn't say it could, but the if/bet doesn't seem to include life, well at least ours.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

The earth cannot become like Venus.

Why not? Surely, on a long enough time frame, this is absolutely possible, yet you're suggesting otherwise. What detail am I missing that makes such  runaway greenhouse problem as we see on Venus impossible here on Earth given the right circumstances? That makes no sense to me.

[et pet]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Why not? Surely, on a long enough time frame, this is absolutely possible, yet you're suggesting otherwise. What detail am I missing that makes such  runaway greenhouse problem as we see on Venus impossible here on Earth given the right circumstances? That makes no sense to me.

Maybe you could attempt doing a little research for yourself on what "makes such runaway greenhouse problem as we see on Venus impossible here on Earth given the right circumstances", maybe?

iNow, with nearly 20,000 Posts, surely you have learned how to do a little research for yourself, have you not?

[iNow]

8 minutes ago, et pet said:

Maybe you could...

Maybe you could stop being evasive and trollish and instead answer my simple direct question. 

4th time asking:

Is your assertion that the cycles will continue unchanged?

OR

Is your assertion just that they will continue?

[zapatos]

23 minutes ago, et pet said:

Maybe you could attempt doing a little research for yourself on what "makes such runaway greenhouse problem as we see on Venus impossible here on Earth given the right circumstances", maybe?

iNow, with nearly 20,000 Posts, surely you have learned how to do a little research for yourself, have you not?

You have chosen the worst possible person to troll about their efforts and ability when it comes to doing research. You are way out of line and digging the hole deeper with each post. 

[et pet]

38 minutes ago, iNow said:

Maybe you could stop being evasive and trollish and instead answer my simple direct question. 

4th time asking:

Is your assertion that the cycles will continue unchanged?

OR

Is your assertion just that they will continue?

Maybe you could stop accusing me of being "evasive and trollish" and actually read my responses.

I addressed All 4 of these questions :

12 hours ago, et pet said:

Is your assertion that the cycles will continue unchanged, or just that they will continue?

How is this relevant? If we reach this consensus, what does it do for us / what question does it answer / what problem does it solve?

In other words, who cares?

I answered all four(4) of those questions 15 Posts(11 hours) back.

 

Edited June 14, 2019 by et pet

[swansont]

20 minutes ago, et pet said:

Maybe you could stop accusing me of being "evasive and trollish" and actually read my responses.

I addressed All 4 of these questions :

I answered all four(4) of those questions 15 Posts(11 hours) back.

 

!

Moderator Note

iNow asked you to to clarify this. Repeating the answer that needed clarification is not responsive to the request

 

[iNow]

22 minutes ago, et pet said:

I answered all four(4) of those questions 15 Posts(11 hours) back.

So, when I asked: 

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Is your assertion that the cycles will continue unchanged?

OR

Is your assertion just that they will continue?

You replied: 

12 hours ago, et pet said:

I said that the Glacial–Interglacial Cycles will still continue.

So, I'll put you down for the second option. Is that fair and reasonable to your actual stance here?