
Glacier National Park to remove all 'glaciers will be gone by 2020' signs - aazaa
https://www.kpax.com/news/local-news/flathead-county/glacier-national-park-to-remove-all-glaciers-will-be-gone-by-2020-signs
======
zamadatix
Was hoping for more detail on the predicted vs actual change beyond what the
headline could tell me. Or even if they have a new prediction.

Edit: This table is helpful [https://www.usgs.gov/data-tools/area-named-
glaciers-glacier-...](https://www.usgs.gov/data-tools/area-named-glaciers-
glacier-national-park-gnp-and-flathead-national-forest-fnf-including)

~~~
Johnny555
Apparently the new date is 2030:

 _The original estimates of the timing of glacier melt were based on two
things: modeled projections of the glaciers’ response to warming, and direct
observations of glacial retreat. A 2003 report was based on modeling a
scenario of doubling pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 levels by 2030, which
would have melted the park’s major glaciers – and presumably the minor ones,
too – by 2030._

[https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/09/fact-check-
no...](https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/09/fact-check-no-the-
glaciers-are-not-growing-in-glacier-national-park/)

~~~
zamadatix
Another study from 2010 seems to have given 2080
[https://www.usgs.gov/centers/norock/science/retreat-
glaciers...](https://www.usgs.gov/centers/norock/science/retreat-glaciers-
glacier-national-park?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects)

It seems we may have quite a bit of understanding to gain regarding glaciers.
I'm not sure if the 2010 study is more reasonable (I'm no expert) but I think
enough time has elapsed in the 2003 study to say that the estimations in it
didn't pan out based on the observed values in 2015.

------
narrator
Back in 2004 the Pentagon predicted dooooooooooooooom by 2020:

[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.t...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver)

"A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The
Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as
Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-
droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world."

~~~
travisoneill1
"Yes Mr. President, as you can see from this report, we are clearly going to
need a much bigger budget!"

------
Mountain_Skies
Beaver Lake in Vancouver's Stanley Park was predicted to fill in and become a
meadow in a couple thousand years. Then it was predicted to be filled by 2020.
But it's not. It might be soon. In ten years or maybe a hundred years. We're
just really bad at predicting such things accurately. In the case of Beaver
Lake, it'll probably get dredged and predictions will become moot.

------
mmcgaha
Warnings of impending problems serve a real purpose even if they miss the
mark. We absolutely want folks thinking about environmental responsibility,
and the consequences of their choices. Unfortunately, some of the more doom
and gloom predictions can send young people down the wrong path.

I remember listening to 10 in 2010 and imagining that I would never make it to
40. Well here we are in 2020, and somewhere along the way, I had to learn to
stop letting the grim predictions of others dictate my life decisions.

I do not think we should stop caring about the future of civil and
environmental issues, but we also need become financially secure, get married,
and raise a family without worry of what may come.

~~~
um_ya
How much research has been done into the _positive_ effects of global warming?
More rainfall, warmer waters, more tropical climate. It's hard to believe
these things might be bad.

Has no one done this kind of research before?

~~~
UnFleshedOne
If your fridge warms up, you can use it as a hothouse (with some lighting),
and freezer as a fridge. This will work and be good. But not for the frozen
produce you already have in there.

------
landryraccoon
Is there an investment fund that is designed to specifically invest in
companies that have solid plans in place for mitigating or taking advantage of
climate change, or taking short positions against industries or regions that
are at risk and totally unprepared?

Examples would be shorting Florida coastal real estate, shorting flood
insurance, long on agricultural and real estate investments that depend on
moving growing zones and seasons, etc..

The most undeniable evidence for climate change would be if people are making
a ton of money from accurately anticipating its results. I’d invest heavily in
such a fund, if it existed.

One cool thing about this is that if you don’t believe in climate change you
would want this too - you should bet against the fund and take the money of
people like myself if you are right. Since I believe climate change is real, I
would happily put my money on the other side of that bet.

~~~
etrautmann
The unfortunate consequence of such an attitude is that it creates further
economic incentives to not attempt to mitigate the damage from or slow down
climate change

~~~
landryraccoon
I’d argue the opposite.

The problem with your position is that you are already describing the status
quo of our society - virtually every entrenched interest in our society
already gains from climate change denial. Fossil fuel exploitation industries
and transportation are a trillion dollar industry already.

On the other hand, the other side of the scale has nothing. A billion dollars
in a hedge fund won’t be the tipping point when Exxon already has a market cap
of 300 billion.

------
vmh1928
while not a prediction as to an exact date (since it's based on historical
information,) these pictures and accompanying article provide some guidance.
Also a link to a geospatial model used for two of the glaciers.

[https://www.nps.gov/glac/learn/nature/melting-
glaciers.htm](https://www.nps.gov/glac/learn/nature/melting-glaciers.htm)

------
falcolas
A National Geographic piece on Glacier National Park. You can see some
"before" and "after" pictures of the last hundred-ish years in the first
minute of the 3.5 minute video.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur4I8tYnxP4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur4I8tYnxP4)

Are they gone? No. Are they going? Sure looks like it.

I recommend visiting (in the summer), regardless of the glacier status. It's
beautiful.

EDIT: Another site with picture differences, with a slider view window. Care
of the National Park Service.

[https://www.nps.gov/glac/learn/nature/melting-
glaciers.htm](https://www.nps.gov/glac/learn/nature/melting-glaciers.htm)

------
RickJWagner
Per the National Review:

The park is reportedly replacing the sign with a more nebulous and less
falsifiable edict: “When [the glaciers] will completely disappear depends on
how and when we act. One thing is consistent: the glaciers in the park are
shrinking.”

------
throwawaysea
A more effective sign that would be more enduring would be one featuring a
recent photo next to a photo from 40 years ago at each location, to make the
change very real.

~~~
r00fus
This would be the best. Also maybe a "see how the park looked 10/20/50/100
years ago" exhibit to emphasize the loss.

------
Torgo
What was the park's plan for 2020? Close down? Change the name of the park?
Without the glaciers, what would be the draw?

~~~
falcolas
Glacier or no, it's a beautiful piece of nearly pristine land. I imagine
they'd simply find other attractions (there are several possibilities) or
focus on the hows and whys of the glacier's disappearance.

If you haven't, I recommend visiting. If you can't visit, have a look at some
of the pictures taken by those who have.

------
qzw
I guess this is one case where they should've abbreviated the year to '20'.

~~~
blackearl
Or in the year 20XX, like an old Megaman game

------
r00fus
Somewhere on Facebook and/or Twitter, climate deniers will use this reporting
as a reason why they think it's a "hoax" that we're in a crisis.

------
vmh1928
more information from last summer here. Reference to a geospatial model used
for a couple of the glaciers plus historical / modern photos showing physical
changes in glaciers.

[https://www.nps.gov/glac/learn/nature/melting-
glaciers.htm](https://www.nps.gov/glac/learn/nature/melting-glaciers.htm)

------
0xdada
I imagine this is perfect for climate change deniers. Climate change is very
difficult to fight because both undershooting and overshooting your
predictions can come back and hurt you.

~~~
rainyMammoth
Unfortunately climate change became a political stance more than a science.

It is now extremely difficult to get straight facts from both sides of this
debate. Both sides feel like thy need to completely overstate and exaggerate
the facts in order to create fear, urgency and hate for the other side.

~~~
maxerickson
There's not really 2 sides to the debate over on the science side.

~~~
lwhalen
It's not nearly as clear-cut as one might hope. Cliff Mass, a respected
University of Washington Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, is a noted
'skeptic' of the urgency of climate change, at least the anthropogenic causes
thereof. I've heard of others, but he's the one that comes closest to mind.

~~~
powowow
It's really fucking clear-cut from a risk management point of view.

~~~
lwhalen
I mean, so is Pascal's Wager. I'm no climate scientist, but from what little
I've read is that _all_ climate models are terrible at predicting more than
10-20 days out, and are on the same level of accuracy as financial forecasting
models (i.e., 'not at all'). In my vast and inky ignorance, I'm just not
convinced we need to _drastically revamp the entire economy soup to nuts_ in
order to satisfy predictions from inaccurate models populated with bad (or at
least 'wildly variable') data.

~~~
gus_massa
> _I mean, so is Pascal 's Wager._

I agree.

> _climate models are terrible at predicting more than 10-20 days out_

Note that if your weeding is in 30 days at noon, and you want to know if it's
going to rain, then you are doomed. There are no good enough models for that
precision.

But if you want to estimate the total rainfall during the year the problem
gets easier. Not very easy or easy, just easier than predicting which day will
rain in approximately a month.

------
JohnClark1337
Any way I can buy one of those signs?

------
bureaucrat
fear-mongering much?

~~~
breakyerself
Wut?

------
sunkenvicar
It’s impossible for a layman to determine how much climate change is caused by
humans.

~~~
commandlinefan
Apparently impossible for scientists, too.

