Edit: This table is helpful https://www.usgs.gov/data-tools/area-named-glaciers-glacier-...
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.
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.
"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."
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.
Even if they change signs to read 'will melt in 2050', that's still terrifying. So I do hope they put up new data soon.
There are plenty of observations that are pretty well established. The problem is that the media only portraits the most catastrophic of the claims. But a lot of climate science is speculation not a demonstration and we have to be much better at calming down and looking at different things with different certainties rather than just claiming the sky is falling.
Even the IPCC report is scaling back on some of the more alarmist rethoric.
There isn't to my knowledge any scientifically demonstrated consequences of climate change we don't know how to deal with.
That should be a good thing yet somehow we've end up in trench wars.
Has no one done this kind of research before?
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.
Rather than shorting, another option might be to buy undeveloped land that should appreciate as climate change predictions come true. For example, the land in the Canadian territories might be an option if you believe thawing will occur. Or possibly further south in the northern US.
If your model says rain patterns will change, invest in desert real estate in those areas set to get the most rain.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
"Glaciers are projected to disappear between 2020 and 2030 based on current emission trends" would still be alarming.
"This glacier likely won't survive long enough for your kids/grandkids to see themselves"
Being over ambiguous just to be right can be just as misleading as overstating certainty. (Think Nostradamus type claims.)
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.
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.”
Here's his most recent summary of his views, specifically how they apply locally: https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2019/12/a-science-based-appro...
> 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.
As far as I can tell there is still a lot of work and debate around how much people contribute to climate change and what are the future previsions. It is important to let the ability for researcher to publish research that goes against the consensus.
The short version is that the 1.5° C target favored by climate activists is completely unrealistic, and it's harmful. We've passed the point where limiting climate change to 1.5° C is realistically feasible: it's still theoretically possible, but it would require the entire industrialized work to engage in the same level of total societal mobilization as WW2 for a whole decade. That's not even remotely feasible.
And when these activists say "it's 1.5° C or nothing", people are going to choose nothing. Voters will elect climate change deniers and/or decide that since they can't hit 1.5° C they might as well not lift a finger to stop climate change. However, it's not too late to limit climate change to 2° C, and while 2° C will have no shortage of harmful repercussions, it won't be the end of the world, and limiting climate change to 2° C is going to be way better for the planet than letting it run away to 3° C or 4° C or more. But the "1.5° C or nothing" rhetoric actively gets in the way of attempts to stop climate change at 2° C.
The perfect is indeed the enemy of the good.
"If you're in any way even slightly wrong, we're right."
Denial mixed with pride is a powerful drug and you see it in action everywhere; the amount of energy we expend on avoiding an uncomfortable truth, be it unrequited love, losing a loved one, or being found to be wrong in an argument.
It doesn't really feel like we're fighting for the survival of our humanity. Maybe just prolonging our own individual existence so we don't have to deal with change, our beloved children be damned.
If the science doesn't support a deadline, then you don't pull one out of thin air while passing it off as a scientific conclusion. To do otherwise is dishonest, even if you think you're doing it for noble ends.
The estimates might well be genuine at the time of publication, but our response to them will make the estimates inaccurate. Maybe all we're managing is to maintain equilibrium rather than positive progress.
I don't assume intentional dishonesty here because the risk of being completely discredited is way too high.
We're talking about the prediction "These glaciers will be gone by 2020".
And I'm not going to subject myself to a bunch of science denier sites to come back with a list of other failed predictions, but there are quite a few of them. Ones that are far more dire and breathless than a tourist trap going away.
If there's a risk of being discredited, it doesn't appear to apply to this topic. Intentional dishonesty? Nah, this is more like depraved indifference. There are no consequences for speaking out one's ass, and most attempts to enforce those consequences socially gets one branded as a "denier".
I don't think that's what people like myself are saying. We're saying that if you can't make accurate predictions (which there's ample evidence of), to declare you "know" what will happen is folly and self-aggrandizing.
Doomsday for lots of Kangeroos and other animals, no wolves in Oz though.
I don't know about Australia, but I know that the vast majority of fires in the US are caused directly by humans. Something like 90+% of them are started artificially(not by lightning strikes or something along those lines), which is kinda sad.
But is climate change necessarily making the situation worse? How great would the Australia fires be if this was the year 2000?
Are the fires worse because of global warming? Kinda hard for me to say with certainty, but I doubt it makes that big of a difference at this point.
Eucalyptus trees are evolved to make oil that volatizes in heat, and makes the atmosphere of entire valleys combustible in the dry season.
Australia being on fire is just Australia.
Wouldn't a long string of failed predictions be indicative of failure to understand...?
I wonder if this comment will contain any bias?
==Wouldn't a long string of failed predictions be indicative of failure to understand...?==
Climate change deniers have a long string of failed predictions . Would you say that is indicative of a failure to understand?
No, the number of failures is completely meaningless, just as the number of successes is. The only thing that is relevant is the ratio of success vs. failure, somehow weighted appropriately based on the certainty claimed for the prediction and to correct for duplicated predictions.
No one is denying that the climate is changing. It always have and it always will.
The discussion is about how much, how big a problem it is, how much of it is because of us and to what extent we can/should do anything about it.
That's the actual debate. Calling someone a climate change denier is a cheap and sloppy shot at trying to lump a much more complex discussion into a simple pro/con.
This is today's argument, because nobody believes yesterday's argument that nothing was changing. This line of attack is simply the pivot. I clearly remember Ted Cruz running around the 2016 primary saying the globe was not warming .
The President exposed it today when he claimed that climate change isn't "a hoax" or "a big scam" like he claimed in the past. Today he said he is a "big believer" in climate change .
The scientific mind is always and should always be skeptical to absolute claims like the glaciers are melting and NY is underwater soon. The "hoax" is not with regards to the climate but with regards to those who claim the glacier is melting in 2020.
The media is the biggest perpetrator of all, fueling to this frenzy that not only makes people panic unnecessarily but also creates a situation where really really really dangerous decisions potentially will be taken.
Yes the climate is changing as it always have, no it's not something we don't know how to deal with over the next 80 years.
So lets all just chill and stop letting the media control the narrative.
This is the same type of false authority you claim the media to be pushing. You do not know this to be true, why would you say it?
==So lets all just chill and stop letting the media control the narrative.==
Agreed. Let's let scientists control the narrative. What do they have to say?
That's why I say it. By all means. Let me know what we can't handle, but as far as I am aware we know how to handle the climate. In fact we've become so good at it that people who dies from climate related disaster have plummeted the last 100 years.
Scientist say that the climate is changing but it's not catastrophic and it's not something we don't know how to handle. Even the latest IPCC report has toned down their fear of the future.
God, no wonder why some people believe strange things.
Do you know why that is?
That's the difference between temperature averaged over thousands of years and then suddenly measuring year over year.
If you think that's a reasonable way of showing temperature changes, then I guess we have very different standards for what we consider evidence.
> [After setting your car on fire] Listen, your car's temperature has changed before.
If you car is on fire, and inside temperature exceeded 70°C when all evidence points it never happened in the past 12 years you had the car, you can insist on measuring the past 24 hour average of interior temperature, because that's the granularity of past data, and claim that there is not enough evidence that anything is amiss.
Or you could just...
...hell, who am I kidding, feel free to say heat is part of nature, it's what mammals crave, and increasing temperature only means your car is more comfortable.
If you averaged that last part of the graph like the previous measurements it wouldn't show this spike.
That's the point here. It's misleading.
That doesn't mean there isn't a change in temperature.
You manage to victimize yourself while calling others "crazy lunatics." Do you see how you are engaging in the exact activity you accuse others of?
Neither of these worst-case-scenarios were avoided by chance. They were avoided by the hard work of decades of politicians and scientists.
The world was a single soldier executing a single order away from a superpower-scale nuclear launch at least one time (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-24280831).
Farming process improvement nearly tripled the yield of existing land in the past half-century (https://ourworldindata.org/exports/global-land-spared-as-a-r...).
We do people a disservice to assume that just because we didn't personally solve a problem, the problem either didn't need to be solved or wasn't solved by human effort.
It's also wrong to assume that improvements only happened because of dire threats. It's not like we haven't been trying to increase agricultural yields for thousands of years.
>A survey of the scientific literature has found that between 1965 and 1979, 44 scientific papers predicted warming, 20 were neutral and just 7 predicted cooling. So while predictions of cooling got more media attention, the majority of scientists were predicting warming even then.
I'm pretty sure I did. No amount of quoting political activist sites or popsci journalism sites is going to change what I experienced.
My experience of the 1960s was we would all die in a nuclear holocaust or be drafted and sent to "conventional" war. I didn't even live in a country with mandatory military service, but was subject to the cultural hegemony of one that did.
My experience of the 1970s was we would all die of a nuclear holocaust, freeze to death in the coming ice age, or starve and freeze because we ran out of oil.
My experience of the 1980s was that we would all die in a nuclear holocaust or subsist in a wasteland caused by no ozone layer and acid rain everywhere.
My experience of the 1990s is limited: I had small children and a mortgage. Nothing existed outside of that for me. It's surprising how little you care about nuclear holocaust when you're chronically sleep deprived for months at a time and are concerned about making sure you have food clothing and shelter for a bunch of dependents.
The last 20 years we're doomed by terrorists or maybe the reactionary governments that respond to terrorism, global warming, and possible nuclear holocaust.
I'm not impressed by post-hoc studies with cherry-picked data used to assert a political position. All those publications are going to roast in the coming nuclear holocaust anyway.
As a elementary school kid in the late 80's early 90's our school had everything from guest speaks, to posters, to t-shirts for everything from:
-hold in the o-zone layer
-nuclear bomb test drills
It seemed one day over night the O-zone layer posters went away and now it was global warming. And sure all of that may make sense in terms of maybe a science class, but this was more of a general lets not teach and indoctrinate. Plus the AIDs stuff always seemed weird, teaching about sex/needles to kids as young as 6. I wouldn't be surprised if that all went away as well for the new topic de jure. I think DARE was also finally pulled from schools and had all kinds of other scandals surrounding the programs that were exposed.
There were much bigger fires past due to lack of fire supplies. What's your point?
Hottest year on record for Australia was 2019 (just ended).
Almost 3 degrees F over average.
High temperatures dry things out and make them easier to burn
2019 was Australia's hottest year on record.