Glacier National Park Removes ‘Glaciers Gone by 2020’ Signs

[NightHawkeye]

From the "2020 is Now", files: Glacier National Park Removes ‘Glaciers Gone by 2020’ Signs

Sharp-eyed visitors have noticed that far from disappearing by 2020, some of them have actually increased in size, and 29 of the glaciers in the Montana park remain stubbornly unmelted, despite “climate change.”
...
As recently as September 2018 the diorama displayed a sign saying GNP’s glaciers were expected to disappear completely by 2020.

But at some point during this past winter (as the visitor center was closed to the public), workers replaced the diorama’s “gone by 2020” engraving with a new sign indicating the glaciers will disappear in “future generations.”
...
A common trick used by the National Park Service at GNP is to display old black-and-white photos of glaciers from bygone years (say, “1922”) next to photos of the same glaciers taken in more recent years showing the glaciers much diminished (say, “2006”). Anyone familiar with glaciers in the northern Rockies knows that glaciers tend to grow for nine months each winter and melt for three months each summer. Thus, such photo displays without precise calendar dates may be highly deceptive.
...
According to Roots ... some of the most famous glaciers in the park have actually grown in the last decade:​

 

[Jimmy D]

OK, that's Breitbart's take, based some a climate change denying nutter's post on his blog, but what about people who have actually studied and measured the glaciers?...


"In 2017, a study released by USGS and Portland State University said that in the past half century, some of the ice formations in Montana had lost 85% of their size and the average shrinkage was 39%.
"In several decades they will be mostly gone. They will grow so small that they will disappear. They will certainly be gone before the end of the century," Dan Fagre, the study's lead scientist, had said.
And humans are responsible, Fagre said after the study's release.
"There are variations in the climate but it is humans that have made all those variations warmer," he said. "The glaciers have been here for 7,000 years and will be gone in decades. This is not part of the natural cycle."
The melting of these structures is "all atmospherically driven," he added.

..........................

At least Breitbart got the part about the signs right, which is their main objective I suppose, riling up half-witted science deniers.

They wouldn't want to focus on the actual data, which suggests that climate change has caused the glaciers to shrink, would they?

 

[NightHawkeye]

At least Breitbart got the part about the signs right...

Well, that's the thing.

It's now abundantly clear that environmental zealots forecasting imminent doom and gloom for the park, and humanity, were WRONG in their predictions.

We can all learn from our mistakes. Admit the mistakes, engage in honest meaningful dialogue, and move forward.

 

[Jimmy D]

Well, that's the thing.

It's now abundantly clear that environmental zealots forecasting imminent doom and gloom for the park, and humanity, were WRONG in their predictions.

We can all learn from our mistakes. Admit the mistakes, engage in honest meaningful dialogue, and move forward.

Which they did.

Meaningful and honest dialogue is not to be found in that snide Breitbart article however.

 

[miamited]

Hi NH,

I believe that science, while I know that it's not with any conceived attempt, uses a lot of 'fuzzy' facts. According to the Scriptures, about 6,000 years ago the earth was created to exist and Adam and Eve were put on it with no clothes on. This would belie the supposed scientific 'facts' that 20,000 years ago the earth endured some mini-ice age or that 60,000 years ago there was some near catastrophic ice age that covered half of the North American continent.

I also understand that there are a lot of people who aren't going to agree with my understanding of what the Scriptures tell us about the beginning of all things. That's ok. This is just me giving my 2¢ worth.

Looking at the other end of the Scriptures, other than when God destroys the earth by fire after removing His children, there doesn't seem to be any indication that the earth is going to be in any kind of natural problem until God pours out His bowls of wrath.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Halbhh]

From the "2020 is Now", files: Glacier National Park Removes ‘Glaciers Gone by 2020’ Signs

Sharp-eyed visitors have noticed that far from disappearing by 2020, some of them have actually increased in size, and 29 of the glaciers in the Montana park remain stubbornly unmelted, despite “climate change.”
...
As recently as September 2018 the diorama displayed a sign saying GNP’s glaciers were expected to disappear completely by 2020.

But at some point during this past winter (as the visitor center was closed to the public), workers replaced the diorama’s “gone by 2020” engraving with a new sign indicating the glaciers will disappear in “future generations.”
...
A common trick used by the National Park Service at GNP is to display old black-and-white photos of glaciers from bygone years (say, “1922”) next to photos of the same glaciers taken in more recent years showing the glaciers much diminished (say, “2006”). Anyone familiar with glaciers in the northern Rockies knows that glaciers tend to grow for nine months each winter and melt for three months each summer. Thus, such photo displays without precise calendar dates may be highly deceptive.
...
According to Roots ... some of the most famous glaciers in the park have actually grown in the last decade:​

The term "Conspiracy Theory" doesn't mean only actual conspiracies, but also refers to seeing ordinary mistakes, errors, dumb stuff, etc. as being a conspiracy, when they are not.

So, someone made a foolish mistake in guessing those glaciers would be gone soon.

That doesn't change the actual reality that climate is warming faster than expected on average.

 

[rambot]

Well, that's the thing.

It's now abundantly clear that environmental zealots forecasting imminent doom and gloom for the park, and humanity, were WRONG in their predictions.

We can all learn from our mistakes. Admit the mistakes, engage in honest meaningful dialogue, and move forward.

Ha! Silly scientists suggesting IMMINENT doom.

Since doom will be slower than they thought, jokes on them. HAhaaaa!

 

[durangodawood]

I'll tell you what is melting pretty fast: climate change denial.

Many ideological holdouts are coming around. But some never will, as theyve basically committed their personal identity, their souls - some might say, to denial.

 

[rjs330]

I'll tell you what is melting pretty fast: climate change denial.

Many ideological holdouts are coming around. But some never will, as theyve basically committed their personal identity, their souls - some might say, to denial.

Not really, what the climate change deniers denied, on the whole was two fold. One, that the climate change was man caused. And two that the change was catastrophic. Oh there were a few that said it's no different now than it ever was, but the VAST majority didn't think that. In fact one of the biggest denier points was that the climate is always changing. It has done so since the dawn of time. But it's not man caused and it's not catastrophic.

 

[JackRT]

I first visited Glacier National Park in 1969. The mountain scenery was spectacular and IIRC there were about 150 glaciers. There are less than half of those remaining.

 

[SummerMadness]

I first visited Glacier National Park in 1969. The mountain scenery was spectacular and IIRC there were about 150 glaciers. There are less than half of those remaining.

Don't pester us with those pesky facts.

 

[durangodawood]

Not really, what the climate change deniers denied, on the whole was two fold. One, that the climate change was man caused. And two that the change was catastrophic. Oh there were a few that said it's no different now than it ever was, but the VAST majority didn't think that. In fact one of the biggest denier points was that the climate is always changing. It has done so since the dawn of time. But it's not man caused and it's not catastrophic.

Ok. I guess I have to take down my "climate change denial will be gone by 2020" signs.

 

[Nithavela]

Not really, what the climate change deniers denied, on the whole was two fold. One, that the climate change was man caused. And two that the change was catastrophic. Oh there were a few that said it's no different now than it ever was, but the VAST majority didn't think that. In fact one of the biggest denier points was that the climate is always changing. It has done so since the dawn of time. But it's not man caused and it's not catastrophic.

There were actually a lot more than those two things to climate change denial. For example, for a long time they denied that the climate was changing at all. Of course, that position has now become indefensible, just like the "catastrophic" part will soon become. Ask the people in Australia for details.

 

[rambot]

Not really, what the climate change deniers denied, on the whole was two fold. One, that the climate change was man caused. And two that the change was catastrophic. Oh there were a few that said it's no different now than it ever was, but the VAST majority didn't think that. In fact one of the biggest denier points was that the climate is always changing. It has done so since the dawn of time. But it's not man caused and it's not catastrophic.

Climate change denial comes in all forms and there are plenty of arguments. I find deniers tend to take their version of denial and say everyone denies in the same way they do. That is incorrect. I've chatted with all sorts of deniers; including those that don't think there is warming because of mass conspiracies.

In fact, it's pretty tough to find a denier whose ideas are not required to hinge on some level of conspiracy.

 

[rjs330]

Ok. I guess I have to take down my "climate change denial will be gone by 2020" signs.

Please do. It's not accurate.

 

[rjs330]

There were actually a lot more than those two things to climate change denial. For example, for a long time they denied that the climate was changing at all. Of course, that position has now become indefensible, just like the "catastrophic" part will soon become. Ask the people in Australia for details.

Not necessarily. What was denied often was that catastrophic global warming was occurring. Especially when the climate had gone into a relatively steady temperature and we weren't seeing the temperature rise. We have been told for quite some time now that the world was warming to such a state that the coasts were all going to be under water soon and many other things. Then when it was revealed that it wasn't increasing that much and had actually steadied suddenly global warming turned into climate change.

And us deniers went from, we are not going to all die from warming to hammering on the point that climate changes. It always has and always will. It has been much warmer in the past as well as much colder. It is not catastrophic and we will get through this like we always have.

 

[rjs330]

And of course we all know of some climate change folks that have made claims about the catastrophic change that never occurred and also those that have flat out told lies about it. So, to make a claim that makes it sound like most deniers are claiming there is not climate change is disingenuous really. There may be a few, but I think you'll find the vast majority never believed there is no climate change at all. We just don't believe it's man caused and don't believe that it's catastrophic.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The climate change debate, in particular, is one of the reasons why I shifted from previously being a more "devout/hardcore" libertarian, to a more libertarian-leaning moderate.

The hardliner an-caps in the libertarian movements, and republicans who pretend to be (when the discussion is centered around a problem that the other side is spearheading the efforts on addressing), seem to take the position of "if the problem is one that can't be solved with 100% purely free-market solutions that fits neatly into our ideological belief that "lower taxes and fewer regulations solve all ills", then we'll just pretend it's not a real issue at all and that the other side is making it up in the name of a power-grab"

If the other side really wants to claim that they want to have meaningful dialog about this, then a few things need to happen.

1) The scientific consensus needs to be acknowledged. The scientific consensus on climate change (and what causes it) is as strong as the scientific consensus that smoking increases the risk of lung cancer.

2) They need to be willing to acknowledge that "lower taxes and fewer regulations" aren't a feasible solution to the problem. There are polluters who would be more than happy to dump sludge in a river, and say "the free market will correct for it". If they have vast wealth/influence, and can give people a product for pennies on the dollar compared to another company that's acting in an ethical/responsible manner, the free market won't correct for it because you'll always have a substantial % of people who exclusively focus on "lowest price" and nothing else when purchasing.

People tend to have short-sighted vision when it comes to certain types of problems "if it's not going to immediately impact me personally in the next 5 years, it's not worth being particularly concerned about"

 

[KarateCowboy]

Ha! Silly scientists suggesting IMMINENT doom.

Since doom will be slower than they thought, jokes on them. HAhaaaa!

Forecasting doom at all all is anti-science nuttery. Warm weather is good for life; Earth's greatest biomass and biodiversity have been at temperatures much higher than we have now.

The glaciers and ice caps are vestiges of the last ice age

 

[SummerMadness]

Forecasting doom at all all is anti-science nuttery. Warm weather is good for life; Earth's greatest biomass and biodiversity have been at temperatures much higher than we have now.

The glaciers and ice caps are vestiges of the last ice age

But not good for human life.