
Mapping 50 Years of Melting Ice in Glacier National Park - daegloe
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/05/24/climate/mapping-50-years-of-ice-loss-in-glacier-national-park.html
======
pilom
Glacier National Park is one of the few US Government organizations that
hasn't backed down to political pressure about climate change. There are
multiple signs in the park that say something along the lines of "See that
glacier over there on the hill? Given the rate of increasing temperatures due
to climate change, we expect that glacier to disappear within 20 years.
Climate change is caused by humans releasing carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere which trap heat." It made me really
thankful I got to visit last year before they are all gone.

~~~
creepydata
[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/news-
blog/2017/jan/25...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/news-
blog/2017/jan/25/national-parks-service-goes-rogue-in-response-to-trump-
twitter-ban)

------
username223
I forget where I read it, but the Rockies' glaciers fare much worse than those
in the Coast Range under global warming. If you want a shocking example, visit
the Athabasca Glacier between Banff and Jasper [1]. It stretched all the way
to the current highway when white men first passed through in the mid-18th
century, and there are concrete pylons showing where its snout was at various
points in the 20th century. That sad little side-glacier on the left connected
to the main one when people first climbed the mountain on the left (Mount
Andromeda). See it while you can.

EDIT: On an unrelated note, the photographer, John Scurlock, has some amazing
aerial photos of other mountains:
[http://www.pbase.com/nolock/](http://www.pbase.com/nolock/)

[1] [http://media-cache-
ec0.pinimg.com/736x/b2/58/eb/b258ebc35c2d...](http://media-cache-
ec0.pinimg.com/736x/b2/58/eb/b258ebc35c2d787394855d20a776d0fa.jpg)

------
24gttghh
buried a couple links down, the real data:

[https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/item/58af7022e4b01ccd54f...](https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/item/58af7022e4b01ccd54f9f542)

------
microbial
Glaciers carved the landscape there, which is why it's called "Glacier
National Park". Sad the glaciers are melting so quickly, but they've been
melting for thousands of years.

~~~
AnonymousPlanet
The issue is the scale and speed.

To get an idea, have a look at
[https://xkcd.com/1732/](https://xkcd.com/1732/) and take your time scrolling
to the end.

------
graycat
We need to measure the average temperature of the earth starting with accurate
thermometers and not pictures of polar bears, ice bergs, glaciers, patterns of
ice in late summer in the Arctic, coral reefs, the snows on Mount
Killimanjaro, etc.

This NYT story is one more example of why I refuse to consider the NYT for
anything, why it's "dead to me", on paper can't compete with Charmin and on
the Web is useless for wrapping dead fish heads.

~~~
gdudeman
The human mind is tuned to story. Stories help us make sense of facts and give
them meaning. That's probably different from person to person - possibly you
believe you're on the fact end of the spectrum.

This is a small part of the overall climate story, but it's actually what
you're arguing for I think - it's a factual account of how glacier ice has
changed in the park. The same has happened in the Juneau Icefields, Mount
Rainier and elsewhere.

Stories are also a useful way to summarize the facts and can be misused to
support things that are not factual - I understand that's what you're saying
here.

I'm not aware of the story you allude to around accurate or inaccurate
thermometers - the one you believe to be the truth.

~~~
graycat
This is yet again the NYT talking about climate. Their goal is to create and
push a never ending sequence of stories about climate, to create a lasting
audience for such stories, and, then, to continue to feed the audience.

The stories all have a foundation -- the sky is falling, in this case, the
earth is warming, growing warmer, and the cause is sin, human sin from human
greed and corruption, for human activities that release CO2 which is warming
the planet dangerously, melting glaciers, ice in the Arctic and Antarctic,
making the oceans acid and killing the coral reefs, killing off food for the
whales, making the lobsters move farther north, raising sea levels, flooding
low lands, killing the polar bears, etc.

IMHO all this NYT stuff is just totally cooked-up, made-up, stirred-up, gang-
up, pile on, nonsense, fake stories to get eyeballs for ad revenue and
otherwise from junk down to a dangerous effort to sabotage the economies of
the world.

Well, then, let's start at the beginning: Warmer. How much warmer, since when,
measured how, by whom, reviewed where, published where, when? On this basic,
foundation issue, IMHO, the NYT should put up or shut up. Since they won't,
and are free to publish their scare sewage, the NYT is dead to me but I am
willing occasionally to call them out on their dangerous nonsense.

For this foundation, we just need the data, temperature, in degrees F, C, or
K.

But the NYT doesn't want to do this.

Similarly stories at _Nova_ want to say "If temperatures keep increasing ..."
Well, from all I've seen, there is no significant evidence that temperatures
have increased significantly for 20 or so years. Moreover, I see no
significant evidence that so far human activity has had any significant effect
on temperature at all. Moreover, I have seen lots of evidence that CO2, from
humans, volcanoes, out gassing from the oceans, rotting plant life, etc. has
never had any significant effect on temperature for at least 800,000 years.
I've seen lots of evidence of significant temperature changes but where CO2
could not have been the cause -- there must be other causes. Basically, over
the past 800,000 years, temperature has changed significantly often, up and
down, but CO2 could not have been the main cause or hardly ever or even once a
significant cause.

Why? Never, but never, not even once, in the whole 800,000 years was
significantly lower temperature closely preceded by significantly lower CO2
concentration. So, CO2 had nothing to do with the change, and there must be
other causes. For higher temperatures, the story is nearly the same. The
evidence is clear: It's just ain't CO2, guys. Sorry 'bout that -- the causes
are elsewhere. The Medieval warm period, closely preceded by higher CO2? Nope.
The Little Ice Age, closely preceded by less CO2? Nope. The cooling from 1940
to 1970 from lower CO2? Nope -- if anything, higher CO2.

It's over, guys: The CO2 scare is a scam.

So, this OP is just again the NYT flogging their fake story. Sure, the NYT
used to have scare stories about global warming, but somehow they got the memo
and changed over to scare stories about "climate change" \-- well, that's
somewhat safe since we can be sure the climate will keep changing.

Then, sure, we get lots of stories about why we must fight climate change --
how the heck to do that? Like the Mayans who killed people to pour their blood
on a rock so that the sun would keep moving across the sky and, thus, avoid
climate change if the sun stopped?

What the NYT is doing is essentially the same as the Mayan charlatans killing
people. And if the NYT had their way, many people would be killed. Indeed,
many are being killed in Africa because of attempts to avoid releasing CO2.
The NYT is up to dirty business, very dirty business.

So, i'm calling them out on it. Simple.

~~~
gloverkcn
It has been proven without question that it is hotter now than it has been in
1000 years.

Link to government website. [https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-
warming](https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming)

The new climate denier stance is that you can't prove 100% without a doubt
that it's human activity. The past decade has ended the "Is the temperature
really increasing" debate.

 _The stories all have a foundation -- the sky is falling, in this case, the
earth is warming, growing warmer, and the cause is sin, human sin from human
greed and corruption, for human activities that release CO2 which is warming
the planet dangerously, melting glaciers, ice in the Arctic and Antarctic,
making the oceans acid and killing the coral reefs, killing off food for the
whales, making the lobsters move farther north, raising sea levels, flooding
low lands, killing the polar bears, etc._

This article did not mention CO2, sin, greed, or corruption. There is a lot of
FUD being thrown around in the public these days, but I didn't find any of it
in this article. Maybe I missed it, so feel free to pull out some choice
quotes.

More than 50% is caused by CO2, which mostly comes from powering our homes and
cars (burning fossil fuels). You can be sinful using green energy as well.

Global warming doesn't cause acidic oceans. You're thinking of acid rain. You
don't hear about it as much any more because congress passed The Clean Air
Act. Since then there's been reduction of acid rain. I'm old enough to
remember when acid rain was a "naturally occurring phenomena and not provably
linked to industrial byproducts"

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain#History_of_acid_rain...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain#History_of_acid_rain_in_the_United_States)

The temperature has been very stable for the last 10K years. It's only been
very recent that we've had such an uptick. Scientist are able to discern the
temperatures of the past through core samples. Those samples also show
dramatically higher CO2.

NASA site:
[https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology_...](https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology_Evidence/paleoclimatology_evidence_2.php)

You chose to highlight the years from 1940-1970. This isn't a discussion about
the natural oscillations in weather. This about the proven sharp increase in
temperatures as it compares to on a paleo scale. *

1\. The earth is warming at an accelerating rate

2\. High levels of CO2 have been linked with paleo level rising temperatures
in the past

3\. Our current CO2 levels are orders of magnitude higher than anything found
in the past.

4\. If the temperatures continue to rise the sea levels will rise, storms will
become stronger, and we'll have both more floods and more droughts (depending
on where you are). There are a host of other ecological impacts.

Our options are:

a) work with the rest of the planet to alleviate the likely causes as
currently determined by analysis of the data and research of >95% of the
science community. At the same time we can continue to research and refine our
understanding.

b) We can assert that none of this is true and hope that it will magically get
better on it's own.

The earth is going to be fine. We can kill everything, including ourselves,
and the planet will just keep turning. There's other planets in the solar
system that are also fine, we just can't live on them.

The goal isn't to save the earth. The goal is to make sure we aren't turning
the only planet we have into something either uninhabitable, or a nightmare.

P.S.

 _Then, sure, we get lots of stories about why we must fight climate change --
how the heck to do that? Like the Mayans who killed people to pour their blood
on a rock so that the sun would keep moving across the sky and, thus, avoid
climate change if the sun stopped?_

This is a bullshit statement.

~~~
graycat
> It has been proven without question that it is hotter now than it has been
> in 1000 years.

That's right and what I explained and what is in the NAS report I quoted.

Point: The current temperature is not unusual, and there are causes of a
temperature this high that have nothing to do with CO2. So, that the current
temperature, and the increase since the coldest of the Little Ice Age, are
from CO2 are suspect.

So, there were climate models that tried to predict the effects of CO2. Well,
as in the graph I showed, nearly all the models predicted temperatures way too
high.

Point: The modelling efforts flopped.

First-cut Conclusion: We are really short on evidence that CO2 is the cause of
any significant temperature increases, now or any time in the past 800,000
years of the Antarctica ice core data.

> This is a bullshit statement.

It's a perfectly solid statement: It's totally clear that temperature can go
up without higher CO2. So, there are other causes. The leading candidate, over
the short term, not the earth passing through some part of the galaxy over
some many millions of years or some such, is sun spots. So, how to do
something about sun spots? Hopeless. That was my point and is perfectly okay.

> The goal is to make sure we aren't turning the only planet we have into
> something either uninhabitable, or a nightmare.

There's not much chance of that, and there's essentially not even a clue that
we are on the way to that. The energy in this debate is wild, irrational
emotions, much like what drove the Myans to pour blood on a rock and have
driven superstition and sacrifices for many thousands of years, those emotions
now driven by quite a lot of US Federal money, money Trump is about to chop
off.

By the way, the Mayan stuff is from

[http://books.google.com/books?id=DgqLplWtGPgC&pg=PA76&lpg=PA...](http://books.google.com/books?id=DgqLplWtGPgC&pg=PA76&lpg=PA76&dq=Mayan+blood+sun+moving+sacrifice&source=web&ots=Do6njWN5M9&sig=FxTeclIiqggqIH5Ws_oENCek1uI&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA76,M1)

from page 76 of

Susan Milbrath, _Star Gods of the Maya: Astronomy in Art, Folklore, and
Calendars (The Linda Schele Series in Maya and Pre-Columbian Studies)_ ,
ISBN-13 978-0292752269, University of Texas Press, 2000.

with

"Indeed, blood sacrifice is required for the sun to move, according to Aztec
cosmology (Durian 1971:179; Sahaguin 1950 \- 1982, 7:8)."

> If the temperatures continue to rise

Since when? That was my original point. Apparently for the past 20 years,
temperatures have not risen, although CO2 has, at least the alarmists seem to
say so. Maybe they are correct; maybe they just got their data from Hawaii
with that data now corrupted by the volcano. Maybe the warmer surface
temperatures of the Pacific around Hawaii caused out gassing of CO2 -- warmer
water absorbs less CO2.

> Our current CO2 levels are orders of magnitude higher than anything found in
> the past.

An "order of magnitude" is a factor of 10. Your claim is tough to believe.
IIRC we long were at about 280 parts per million of CO2 and, IIRC, from the
alarmists, now are at about 400. That's not even a factor of 2. Moreover, we
have no solid evidence that 400 ppm CO2 is actually warming the planet. E.g.,
the planet was this warm in the year 1000 when CO2 was not unusually high --
so, there are causes of warming other than CO2, and there's darned little
reason to believe that CO2 is responsible for any warming now. Indeed, in the
last 20 years, CO2 has been increasing but temperature has not. Indeed, from
1940 to 1970, CO2 increased but temperature declined a little showing that
higher CO2 does not always lead to higher temperatures.

Net, the evidence is that CO2 has had little or nothing to do with the planet
getting warmer, ever in the past 800,000 years of the Antarctica ice core
data.

> High levels of CO2 have been linked with paleo level rising temperatures in
> the past

No, not really: From the 800,000 year data, none of the significantly higher
temperatures were preceded by significantly higher CO2. Yes, after
temperatures went up from whatever causes, not CO2, about 800 years later CO2
went up -- presumably from more biological activity from higher temperatures.
That's your "linked".

> The earth is warming at an accelerating rate

What rates? Since when? Compared with what? As in the NAS reference I gave,
the temperature now is not unusually high, is about the same as in the year
1000, is cooler than in the Medieval Warm Period, and has not increased at all
in the past 20 years. I see no "accleration".

> You chose to highlight the years from 1940-1970. This isn't a discussion
> about the natural oscillations in weather. This about the proven sharp
> increase in temperatures as it compares to on a paleo scale.

Right, there are, call it, "natural oscillations," and maybe count the cooling
from 1940 to 1970 as part of that. So, we get two conclusions: (A) Then CO2
was higher than before (due to WWII, etc.) but the higher CO2 did not cause
warming. (B) There are causes of cooling other than lower CO2; CO2 is not the
only cause of temperature changes; so, we are not at all sure that the
temperature now is from CO2.

> paleo scale

Huh? The usual claim is that higher CO2 now is driving temperatures higher
now, and we need to cut back on human sources of CO2 now. Paleo is not part of
that argument. And, to shoot down that argument, CO2 levels seem (the
alarmists claim) to be at about 400 parts per million now and maybe
increasing, but we're not seeing higher temperatures and have not for 20
years. So, where are the higher temperatures now from the higher CO2 now? My
conclusion: CO2 has next to nothing to do with temperature, and we can forget
about CO2.

> This article did not mention CO2, sin, greed, or corruption.

That's what the article is really about; the article is a manipulation, trying
to sell band instruments and uniforms because of the threat of a pool table in
town. So, the Music Man mentioned only the pool table. Well, what he was
really interested in was selling some band stuff, taking the money, and
getting out of town.

Trust me: The article is about CO2 and then reducing CO2 and then emphasizing
renewables and then wind and solar and then batteries and then the money --
big subsidies. In the end it's about the money, e.g., the $1 B or so a year in
research grants, the $1 B or so to Musk, forcing utility companies to accept
unstable wind and solar power they very much do not want, etc. It's now a
Green Glob, a big industry, all based on US Federal money from scaring the
taxpayers.

> Global warming doesn't cause acidic oceans.

The claim is that CO2 in the water makes the water more acidic, causes acidic
oceans.

> Maybe I missed it, so feel free to pull out some choice quotes.

The whole article is FUD in the sense that it's propaganda pushing the claim
that CO2 from human activities is about to ruin the planet -- the sky is
falling.

> The new climate denier stance is that you can't prove 100% without a doubt
> that it's human activity. The past decade has ended the "Is the temperature
> really increasing" debate.

Again, the temperature hasn't been increasing for 20 years, and now it's just
where is was in year 1000 and, thus, not new or unusual and need not have been
caused by CO2 since the temperature in year 1000 wasn't.

> denier stance

I don't know what that is; I'm just explaining what's totally clear. I'm not
part of any group on climate; I'm certainly not being paid. Here I'm just
trying to push back against propaganda.

I've here, now done my best to slap down the NYT propaganda and need to get
back to my startup.

~~~
mturmon
"It's now a Green Glob, a big industry, all based on US Federal money from
scaring the taxpayers."

You're willing to credulously state this kind of wild conspiracy theory -- as
if a "Green Glob" of deceptive scientists is a simple explanation for
everything we observe -- CO2, glaciers, temperatures, ocean changes -- but
also willing to ignore the very solid science in, for example, the IPCC AR5
report? And to spend many paragraphs denouncing an NYT story for being the
kind of fluffy stuff ("polar bears") that you can't be bothered to take
seriously?

The serious stuff is out there if you cared to look.

~~~
okreallywtf
Its funny, several years ago when climate deniers were generally still in the
full denial stage - ie saying the earth wasn't warming - I remember thinking
how the evidence was going to become undeniable at some point even by first
hand observation (I understand that that is actually not possible, but that it
can drive perception and openness to the idea that the earth is warming) and
how deniers would have to retreat ever further to state that humans are not
the cause, I never thought that would happen so fast.

Is there a word for this, when a point of view is continually challenged and
disproved but rather than accepting another point of view, the holders of this
position just adapt their reasoning and continue on as if they always held
their current position? It reminds me of so many types of arguments but I feel
the need to have a specific term to describe it. It reminds me of contrived
inductive arguments attempting to hold doggedly onto the geocentric model of
the solar system[1].

I think you could sum it up as this situation: When you have to evolve your
position over and over in the light of overwhelming evidence that makes you no
longer able to persuade any others to your way of thinking, but with each new
iteration of your position you hold it with absolute confidence despite having
been proven wrong again and again.

This is distinct from a rational view where you allow evidence and reasoning
to inform your decision because people who do this don't change their actual
position, they just cherry-pick their rational, and it has nothing to do with
being disproved but instead the perception of others and your ability to
persuade them. If they could continue to make the argument that the world is
not warming they would never bother to change it. They only evolve as a means
of the survival of their position.

It reminds me of how the catholic church "evolves", subsequent generations of
clergy might hold some truths to be unquestionable while choosing to disregard
the truths of their predecessors as the perceptions of their followers change
as a means of survival. Demonizing homosexuals is just not sustainable and the
church will evolve so as to not alienate their customers, but then still
demand to be taken seriously on any number of other topics with seemingly no
awareness of the contradiction.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_and_epicycle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_and_epicycle)

~~~
martinpw
Not quite what you are asking, but related, is the idea of evaporative cooling
of beliefs, a selection effect where over time the more objective and rational
holders of a belief are persuaded by the evidence that their belief is
incorrect, and those who continue to cling to the belief become a
progressively smaller group who are increasingly uninterested in rational
argument or scientific evidence. This results in the group arguments becoming
progressively more shrill and incoherent.

[http://lesswrong.com/lw/lr/evaporative_cooling_of_group_beli...](http://lesswrong.com/lw/lr/evaporative_cooling_of_group_beliefs/)

~~~
okreallywtf
Interesting, maybe not the same effect but maybe one that works in concert.

