Officials at Glacier National Park making changes...

[MigL]

It seems both sides agree that the cycles will continue, but may be modified by ACC.
Can we move on.

On the subject of 'runaway' ACC, such that the Earth becomes like Venus, I was asked 'Why not ?".

The Earth is a closed system. Its chemical composition will not change.
Its orbital dynamics and the composition of its outer 'active' layers ( atmosphere, seas and surface ) are not suitable for ever becoming like Venus.
At various times in the past, the composition of its atmosphere has had CO2 levels 10-15 times higher than the current high ( causing ACC ) levels.
And there was no 'runaway' then. Rather, various feedback mechanisms force conditions back towards ( somewhat of an ) equilibrium.
One of these feedback mechanisms is the extinction of the species causing the elevated levels of CO2 and ACC.
Bad news for us if we don't do something about it.

Incidentally the Earth has already gotten so hot that dinosaurs have made a comeback.
Canada and the US are dominated by RAPTORS.
( you have to watch NBA basketball )

[et pet]

50 minutes ago, iNow said:

So, when I asked: 

You replied: 

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

NO! 

NO! I did not assert : "that the cycles will continue unchanged".

NO! I did not assert : "just that they will continue"

The Fact that they are described as Cycles should make it abundantly clear that they will always be changing.  

I have repeatedly told you that I said the Glacial–Interglacial Cycles will still continue.

From what I have been taught, these Glacial/Inter-Glacial Cycles will never repeat exactly the same. Neither in severity nor duration, there are just too many variables involved for that to ever happen.

iNow, there is no reason to try to introduce any Dilemma or Dichotomy that does not exist.

In debate clubs in high-school and college, they had a name for what you seem to be trying to force upon me. It was referred to as a Fake or False Dilemma or Dichotomy or something along those lines.

PLEASE, Please just read my Posts!

Maybe watch the Video at the Link that MigL provided.

BTW - I cannot seem to find any of your Posts where you "asked" me "to clarify" anything. 

[iNow]

Lol

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, et pet said:

BTW - I cannot seem to find any of your Posts where you "asked" me "to clarify" anything. 

Oh FFS.

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, et pet said:

The Fact that they are described as Cycles should make it abundantly clear that they will always be changing.  

A 'cycle' is a repetition of what came before i.e there is a sameness. 

[iNow]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

The Earth is a closed system. 

No. That’s not accurate. 

[beecee]

8 hours ago, MigL said:

What does the expression "having 2 bob each way" actually mean ?

 Aussie slang for having a bet each way...straddling the fence so to speak, and certainly not in reference to yourself, 

8 hours ago, MigL said:

The earth cannot become like Venus.

Why? I was always of the opinion that Earth, Mars and Venus all at one time had Oceans and were in many ways similar to Earth...at best I would have thought that we just as yet do not know enough about greenhouse effects and other natural events to say one way or the other. In saying that I am not pretending to be a climate change expert or meteorologist, but simply someone interested in our planet's welfare and as per other questions asked, would like members partaking here to answer questions direct and not beat around the bush, and again, that is not primarily directed at you.

The Chandler wobble, rotational period,  axial tilt, tidal effects and tidal locking, are just a few of the motions and effects on Earth that affect climate.

And finally in a future age a couple of billion years hence, when the Sun is in the process of becoming a red giant, and if we are still around, will that not be harmful to say the least to Earth and its atmosphere?

The question that I don't believe we have a validated answer for, would be, what happened to Venus to produce the runaway greenhouse effect it obviously underwent....

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

A 'cycle' is a repetition of what came before i.e there is a sameness. 

Bingo! As per the Sun's Saro's cycles just to give an example.

Edited June 14, 2019 by beecee

[et pet]

3 hours ago, StringJunky said:

A 'cycle' is a repetition of what came before i.e there is a sameness. 

I was referring to the Glacial/Inter-Glacial Cycles. 

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

Yes, StringJunky, you could possibly say that there is a "sameness" in that there is a Glacial Period, and then an Inter-Glacial Period, and then a Glacial Period, and then an Inter-Glacial period, and then a Glacial...(you see where this is going...) We are currently in an Inter-Glacial Period.

But, like I said before, from what I have been taught, these Glacial/Inter-Glacial Cycles will never repeat exactly the same. Neither in severity nor duration, there are just too many variables involved for that to ever happen.

 

[iNow]

Thank you for finally answering my question (even if you did so only inadvertently). 

[beecee]

1 hour ago, et pet said:

Yes, StringJunky, you could possibly say that there is a "sameness" in that there is a Glacial Period, and then an Inter-Glacial Period, and then a Glacial Period, and then an Inter-Glacial period, and then a Glacial...(you see where this is going...) We are currently in an Inter-Glacial Period.

 

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Thank you for finally answering my question (even if you did so only inadvertently). 

Are we all in agreement that other then pin point accuracy with regards to time frames, human induced climate change is having a broad general effect on climate, and that is certainly what the science is obviously telling us, and it is just as certainly what we should be trying to curtail and slow down as much as is humanly and technology possible to do.

Edited June 15, 2019 by beecee

[iNow]

21 minutes ago, beecee said:

Are we all in agreement that other then pin point accuracy with regards to time frames, human induced climate change is having a broad general effect on climate, and that is certainly what the science is obviously telling us, and it is just as certainly what we should be trying to curtail and slow down as much as is humanly and technology possible to do.

Hmmm. I think maybe you should ask me 5 more times before I answer.

[et pet]

   You asked :

On 6/13/2019 at 8:59 PM, 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 answered :

21 hours ago, et pet said:

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!

iNow, I answered your questions, the first time you asked(21 hours ago!). So would you Please Clarify this :

3 hours ago, iNow said:

Thank you for finally answering my question (even if you did so only inadvertently). 

 

Edited June 15, 2019 by et pet

[beecee]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

 

Are we all in agreement that other then pin point accuracy with regards to time frames, human induced climate change is having a broad general effect on climate, and that is certainly what the science is obviously telling us, and it is just as certainly what we should be trying to curtail and slow down as much as is humanly and technology possible to do.

 

[beecee]

 

Assuming we all agree with the above, I decided to read the OP again and see if anything else struck me.....it did....[1] Who is this Roger I Roots? [2] He then smugly claims " In recent years the National Park Service prominently featured brochures, signs and films which boldly proclaimed that all glaciers at GNP were melting away rapidly. But now officials at GNP seem to be scrambling to hide or replace their previous hysterical claims while avoiding any notice to the public that the claims were inaccurate." Hysterical claims??? Perhaps he needs to ask himself, what was at stake? Or just suggest that they may have been in error? We often here the same unscientific half claims, when a particular cold day brings the anti climate change adherents out of the woodwork to exclaim, see!! Look at that? Then I found this, only a couple of years old and my thoughts were illustrated...https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/11/us-glacier-national-park-is-losing-its-glaciers-with-just-26-of-150-left "Warming winters are bringing more rain, rather than glacier-forming snow, to Montana and other states. Even when there is plenty of snow, as Montana experienced this winter, the increasing heat of spring and summer is melting it away more quickly. Spring snow melts are now occurring at least two weeks earlier than they were in the 1960s" and “The glaciers have waxed and waned with different climate fluctuations but this is the first time they are heading for almost certain extinction,” Farge said". and "This is the first time in 7,000 years they’ve experienced this temperature and precipitation. There’s no hope for them to survive. We’d need a major reversal where it would get cooler, not just stop getting warmer. There’s nothing to suggest that will happen.”

"According to Nasa, the world’s glaciers have lost around 400bn tons of ice per year since 1994, a decline that has impacted wildlife, increased wildfire risk in places and contributed to rapid sea level rise".

 

In essence then I would very much say that as opposed to being an interesting article, it is more another example of a non qualified person, jumping on the anti bandwagon to perhaps make a bigger name for himself, by trying to criticise the science, and jumping to unqualified conclusions.

What do others think? Again, while neither a climatologist or a scientist, I am of the opinion that the seriousness and consequences of climate change, makes it imperitive that if we are to err, we must err on the side of caution.

Interestingly, a similar argument is often used with regards to the Great Barrier Reef, which for me is much closer to home.

[MigL]

I recalled that none other than S Hawking had made the claim that Earth could become like Venus.
Finally found it, and posting a link to the rebuttal of S Hawking's statement by several prominent scientists.

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/earth-is-not-at-risk-of-becoming-a-hothouse-like-venus-as-stephen-hawking-claimed-bbc/

I won't go into the details.
Read it if you are interested.

[iNow]

24 minutes ago, MigL said:

Read it if you are interested.

That was really helpful. Thank you, MigL. +1

Summarized: Same greenhouse effect, but not as massively extreme as on Venus, and this is true even if we burnt and released all of earths available carbon into the atmosphere (and also no sulfuric acid rain here like there).  

I was focused solely on the similarity of the greenhouse process across both planets and am grateful for the correction on the important differences in possible magnitude.

I’m also glad to see that those rebutting Hawking all agreed that we’re harming our planet and need to implement immediate, vast, all encompassing changes to avoid extinction. 

[beecee]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

I recalled that none other than S Hawking had made the claim that Earth could become like Venus.
Finally found it, and posting a link to the rebuttal of S Hawking's statement by several prominent scientists.

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/earth-is-not-at-risk-of-becoming-a-hothouse-like-venus-as-stephen-hawking-claimed-bbc/

I won't go into the details.
Read it if you are interested.

Thanks MigL...Interesting yes!

[dimreepr]

9 hours ago, MigL said:

I recalled that none other than S Hawking had made the claim that Earth could become like Venus.
Finally found it, and posting a link to the rebuttal of S Hawking's statement by several prominent scientists.

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/earth-is-not-at-risk-of-becoming-a-hothouse-like-venus-as-stephen-hawking-claimed-bbc/

I won't go into the details.
Read it if you are interested.

That doesn't mean we'll see glaciers again.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Discussion of effects on society has been split

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/119243-societal-effect-of-climate-change-split-from-officials-at-glacier-national-park/