USGS warns glaciers will be melted by 2020
01-16-2020, 06:11 AM
#63
Admirals Club 
Originally Posted by wiread
when your argument falls short, it's always best to attack the messenger. A time honored technique for sure victory.
If the shoe fits...
01-16-2020, 08:00 AM
#64
Senior Member
Originally Posted by NCSUboater
I'm with you, and agree. I did not phrase it well, so again apologies.
I've cursed a good number of traffic and firmware engineers. And mechanical engineers that apparently have never had to actually WORK on a motor vehicle.
I've cursed a good number of traffic and firmware engineers. And mechanical engineers that apparently have never had to actually WORK on a motor vehicle.
It's all good. I'm just sticking up for other scientists, including me. Most of us really do try to make a positive difference.I'm not sure where this anti-science or scientific mistrust comes from. Well, actually I can name a few reasons, but I'm not going there today. On a daily basis, I see some US students with inadequate STEM skills. Then I compare those students to ones from Germany, China, the UK and I get depressed. We are doing a shit job of adequately preparing our youngsters to prosper in this world and think for themselves.
This thread is just one example. The daily caller? You rely on that sensationalist rag for your news? Jeebus. The "credible source" is Roger Roots? A lawyer with no discernible scientific training of any kind? Founded a fictional university that apparently is housed in his law office. Oohkay.
I'll quote from another equally inane thread on this topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CME View Post
I honestly wonder if people can still read:
Glaciers Appear to be Growing, not Melting in Recent Years
By Roger I. Roots, J.D., Ph.D.,
Founder, Lysander Spooner University
May 30, 2019. St. Mary, Montana. Officials at Glacier National Park (GNP) have begun quietly removing and altering signs and government literature which told visitors that the Park’s glaciers were all expected to disappear by either 2020 or 2030.
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. Teams from Lysander Spooner University visiting the Park each September have noted that GNP’s most famous glaciers such as the Grinnell Glacier and the Jackson Glacier appear to have been growing—not shrinking—since about 2010. (The Jackson Glacier—easily seen from the Going-To-The-Sun Highway—may have grown as much as 25% or more over the past decade.)
Hmm. Address for Lysander Spooner University resolves to a single building on a dirt road and is also listed as the address for R. Roots law firm. Website for said "university" is hosted by wordpress and offers no legitimate classes.
"Teams for Lysander Spooner University" my ass. Have you ever heard of this "university" or met any graduates? I haven't.
I notice that there is no data published nor supporting said 25% increase in Jackson Glacier. You're going to believe a crappy-ass website posted by a dude who (as far as I can tell) has no scientific background (is actually a lawyer), no scientific publications to his name, and most likely a fake university?
Or maybe you could look at actual data from the USGS showing that Jackson Glacier's area has decreased 76% from 1850 to 2015. Grinnell Glacier's area decreased 71%. Is that growing?
https://www.usgs.gov/data-tools/area...-fnf-including
At least 3 of the 37 named glaciers at GNP are 90%+ decreased and on average 68% decreased. I'd say some of those signs were pretty accurate - between 2020 and 2030. Not to mention that in the 1800s, there were likely close to 150 glaciers large enough to be named and we're now down to 37.
But hey, nothing to see here. Look, I made a snowball! Proof the earth isn't warming.
Last edited by stimpson.j.cat; 01-16-2020 at 08:06 AM.
01-16-2020, 08:58 AM
#65
Admirals Club
No doubt the climate changes but it always is changing. It is different than it was 10K years ago and it was different than 1 million years ago. The way I see it is there are a couple of constant factors involved, the sun and the earth's geology and both of them have been around a lot longer than man and have been influencing the climate since the beginning. I think that we have very little or no effect on the overall effect on the climate. Now when we put instruments to measure temperature in the heart of a concrete city with blacktop roads and streets the temperatures will be elevated opposed to the country but that has nothing to do with CO2.
01-16-2020, 09:22 AM
#66
Junior Member
Wasn't there a climate university in Europe that got busted sending internal emails to encourage changing the temperature data of the ocean to show there models to be correct a few years ago? I remember it being a pretty big deal. They get their funding for climate change research so what happens if your not showing any new evidence or catastrophe? YOU DON'T GET FUNDING!!!!!
After that I quit listening to all the doom and gloom, people are killing the earth, don't eat meat because of cow farts crowd.
After that I quit listening to all the doom and gloom, people are killing the earth, don't eat meat because of cow farts crowd.
01-16-2020, 09:28 AM
#67
Originally Posted by JRG41
No doubt the climate changes but it always is changing. It is different than it was 10K years ago and it was different than 1 million years ago. The way I see it is there are a couple of constant factors involved, the sun and the earth's geology and both of them have been around a lot longer than man and have been influencing the climate since the beginning. I think that we have very little or no effect on the overall effect on the climate. Now when we put instruments to measure temperature in the heart of a concrete city with blacktop roads and streets the temperatures will be elevated opposed to the country but that has nothing to do with CO2.
01-16-2020, 10:09 AM
#68
Admirals Club
Originally Posted by Aliboy
And your lack of thinking is depressing. So I hire out boats for club members to use and take large groups out fishing. Guess what I compete with? I compete with those people buying their own boats. Now I accept that you might not know the charter business from the hole in your arse that you talk through, but do the environmental maths on say 100 people buying their own boats vs sharing 10 or 12 etc. Want to guess which is better for the environment?
So then I take people fishing. Want to guess whether taking 10 to 12 people out for a fish on one boat is more environmentally friendly than the 3 to 4 recreational boats they would use otherwise?
So then let's talk about other factors. My family has now got our daily transport to around 65%+public transport. Some changes we just made will take that closer to 80% - 90%. We have our home power usage down to the equivalent of a single person home when we have 4 people in a 7 bedroom house and guest house. Our 4 person water usage is barely the 3 person average. We have already planted a small forest of native trees and continue to plant more in ecologically sensitive areas. And so it goes on. All without doing much more than being conscious of our impact on our environment and not being lazy asses. Stick your hypocracy where the sun doesn't shine or maybe better, get off your self indulgant fat arse and try to make a difference.
As for the original response, I was nearly pointing out that using the ozone hole as an example of some scientific conspiracy theory was not a good way to make a point.
So then I take people fishing. Want to guess whether taking 10 to 12 people out for a fish on one boat is more environmentally friendly than the 3 to 4 recreational boats they would use otherwise?
So then let's talk about other factors. My family has now got our daily transport to around 65%+public transport. Some changes we just made will take that closer to 80% - 90%. We have our home power usage down to the equivalent of a single person home when we have 4 people in a 7 bedroom house and guest house. Our 4 person water usage is barely the 3 person average. We have already planted a small forest of native trees and continue to plant more in ecologically sensitive areas. And so it goes on. All without doing much more than being conscious of our impact on our environment and not being lazy asses. Stick your hypocracy where the sun doesn't shine or maybe better, get off your self indulgant fat arse and try to make a difference.
As for the original response, I was nearly pointing out that using the ozone hole as an example of some scientific conspiracy theory was not a good way to make a point.
Now, in regards to your own response above, I think we can discern the following...
- You live in a 7-bedroom home (Al Gore would be jealous...his only has 6 bedrooms)
- You have a guest house
- You run multiple boats capable of fishing 10 to 12 people at a time (it's assumed these are large trawler type boats with inboards, salons, a/c, etc.) - not the most efficient models to say the least
- You burn thousands of gallons of fossil fuel per year for your business
- You plant a few seedlings every year to make yourself feel better about burning all that fossil fuel
- You pride yourself in being an eco-warrior and come on this site (and likely others) spouting your climate change rhetoric
- You are a big, fat, blubbering Hypocrite with no credibility.
01-16-2020, 10:48 AM
#69
Senior Member
Originally Posted by Aliboy
And your lack of thinking is depressing. So I hire out boats for club members to use and take large groups out fishing. Guess what I compete with? I compete with those people buying their own boats. Now I accept that you might not know the charter business from the hole in your arse that you talk through, but do the environmental maths on say 100 people buying their own boats vs sharing 10 or 12 etc. Want to guess which is better for the environment?
So then I take people fishing. Want to guess whether taking 10 to 12 people out for a fish on one boat is more environmentally friendly than the 3 to 4 recreational boats they would use otherwise?
So then let's talk about other factors. My family has now got our daily transport to around 65%+public transport. Some changes we just made will take that closer to 80% - 90%. We have our home power usage down to the equivalent of a single person home when we have 4 people in a 7 bedroom house and guest house. Our 4 person water usage is barely the 3 person average. We have already planted a small forest of native trees and continue to plant more in ecologically sensitive areas. And so it goes on. All without doing much more than being conscious of our impact on our environment and not being lazy asses. Stick your hypocracy where the sun doesn't shine or maybe better, get off your self indulgant fat arse and try to make a difference.
As for the original response, I was nearly pointing out that using the ozone hole as an example of some scientific conspiracy theory was not a good way to make a point.
So then I take people fishing. Want to guess whether taking 10 to 12 people out for a fish on one boat is more environmentally friendly than the 3 to 4 recreational boats they would use otherwise?
So then let's talk about other factors. My family has now got our daily transport to around 65%+public transport. Some changes we just made will take that closer to 80% - 90%. We have our home power usage down to the equivalent of a single person home when we have 4 people in a 7 bedroom house and guest house. Our 4 person water usage is barely the 3 person average. We have already planted a small forest of native trees and continue to plant more in ecologically sensitive areas. And so it goes on. All without doing much more than being conscious of our impact on our environment and not being lazy asses. Stick your hypocracy where the sun doesn't shine or maybe better, get off your self indulgant fat arse and try to make a difference.
As for the original response, I was nearly pointing out that using the ozone hole as an example of some scientific conspiracy theory was not a good way to make a point.
I'm not picking sides here and frankly i don't care, but this isn't helping you.
01-16-2020, 11:12 AM
#70
Senior Member
Originally Posted by bone-a-fide
untrue. The glaciers are shrinking. But they are still there.
https://www.yaleclimateconnections.o...national-park/
https://www.yaleclimateconnections.o...national-park/
01-16-2020, 11:17 AM
#71
Senior Member
Originally Posted by Marlin308
Thank you for your response, since you typically disappear when called out in the past regarding your fossil fuel usage. I'd still like to know how many thousands of gallons of fuel you use annually to run your charter business, but I'm guessing you're too ashamed to share that figure.
Now, in regards to your own response above, I think we can discern the following...
- You live in a 7-bedroom home (Al Gore would be jealous...his only has 6 bedrooms)
- You have a guest house
- You run multiple boats capable of fishing 10 to 12 people at a time (it's assumed these are large trawler type boats with inboards, salons, a/c, etc.) - not the most efficient models to say the least
- You burn thousands of gallons of fossil fuel per year for your business
- You plant a few seedlings every year to make yourself feel better about burning all that fossil fuel
- You pride yourself in being an eco-warrior and come on this site (and likely others) spouting your climate change rhetoric
- You are a big, fat, blubbering Hypocrite with no credibility.
Now, in regards to your own response above, I think we can discern the following...
- You live in a 7-bedroom home (Al Gore would be jealous...his only has 6 bedrooms)
- You have a guest house
- You run multiple boats capable of fishing 10 to 12 people at a time (it's assumed these are large trawler type boats with inboards, salons, a/c, etc.) - not the most efficient models to say the least
- You burn thousands of gallons of fossil fuel per year for your business
- You plant a few seedlings every year to make yourself feel better about burning all that fossil fuel
- You pride yourself in being an eco-warrior and come on this site (and likely others) spouting your climate change rhetoric
- You are a big, fat, blubbering Hypocrite with no credibility.
If he really cared he wouldn't run charters. My Suzuki 115 can run on $20 for a weekend. 12 people that would otherwise go on his charter could run the same boat and still come out ahead vs his huge, diesel guzzling trawler.
His 7 bedroom house demanded far more environmental resources than my paltry 3 bedroom shack did
You are all welcome, but no need to thank me.
01-16-2020, 11:18 AM
#72
Senior Member
Government science is what brought us 3 day long recreational snapper seasons on the Gulf Coast. That despite exploding snapper populations.
01-16-2020, 11:44 AM
#73
Senior Member
Originally Posted by stimpson.j.cat
It's all good. I'm just sticking up for other scientists, including me. Most of us really do try to make a positive difference.I'm not sure where this anti-science or scientific mistrust comes from. Well, actually I can name a few reasons, but I'm not going there today. On a daily basis, I see some US students with inadequate STEM skills. Then I compare those students to ones from Germany, China, the UK and I get depressed. We are doing a shit job of adequately preparing our youngsters to prosper in this world and think for themselves.
This thread is just one example. The daily caller? You rely on that sensationalist rag for your news? Jeebus. The "credible source" is Roger Roots? A lawyer with no discernible scientific training of any kind? Founded a fictional university that apparently is housed in his law office. Oohkay.
I'll quote from another equally inane thread on this topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CME View Post
I honestly wonder if people can still read:
Glaciers Appear to be Growing, not Melting in Recent Years
By Roger I. Roots, J.D., Ph.D.,
Founder, Lysander Spooner University
May 30, 2019. St. Mary, Montana. Officials at Glacier National Park (GNP) have begun quietly removing and altering signs and government literature which told visitors that the Park’s glaciers were all expected to disappear by either 2020 or 2030.
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. Teams from Lysander Spooner University visiting the Park each September have noted that GNP’s most famous glaciers such as the Grinnell Glacier and the Jackson Glacier appear to have been growing—not shrinking—since about 2010. (The Jackson Glacier—easily seen from the Going-To-The-Sun Highway—may have grown as much as 25% or more over the past decade.)
Hmm. Address for Lysander Spooner University resolves to a single building on a dirt road and is also listed as the address for R. Roots law firm. Website for said "university" is hosted by wordpress and offers no legitimate classes.
"Teams for Lysander Spooner University" my ass. Have you ever heard of this "university" or met any graduates? I haven't.
I notice that there is no data published nor supporting said 25% increase in Jackson Glacier. You're going to believe a crappy-ass website posted by a dude who (as far as I can tell) has no scientific background (is actually a lawyer), no scientific publications to his name, and most likely a fake university?
Or maybe you could look at actual data from the USGS showing that Jackson Glacier's area has decreased 76% from 1850 to 2015. Grinnell Glacier's area decreased 71%. Is that growing?
https://www.usgs.gov/data-tools/area...-fnf-including
At least 3 of the 37 named glaciers at GNP are 90%+ decreased and on average 68% decreased. I'd say some of those signs were pretty accurate - between 2020 and 2030. Not to mention that in the 1800s, there were likely close to 150 glaciers large enough to be named and we're now down to 37.
But hey, nothing to see here. Look, I made a snowball! Proof the earth isn't warming.
Funny, most of the climate change hyperbole is made by....wait for it..
Lawyers!
Then media and Hollywood elites make the next most hyperbole comments and I doubt any of them have ever had a chemistry class, physics, meteorology, geology , biology or botany classes ever at the college level. While I don't have a PhD I did earn a degree in biology with an emphasis in conservation biology and a master's in environmental planning and resource management. My entire beef with all this is how so many people who have never studied any hard sciences or earned a single degree in a hard science lecture everyone about science.
The lawyers claim the science is settled. Ok, but science relies on debate, discovery and change to improve. The scientific method and process begs for investigation and questioning. So. When lawyers tell me the debate is over I say they are idiots and don't know a thing about research and discovery using science. The day science stops questioning itself on most ideas and topics is the day science goes from being science to being dogma.
Carbon in my opinion is not a driver here. Water and methane are bigger influences with water vapor and liquid being the single biggest factor in regulating temperature. Carbon may influence it some but it's not a driver of it.
01-16-2020, 11:45 AM
#74
Admirals Club
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Reading, PA/Indian River, DE
Posts: 3,183
Received 556 Likes
on
287 Posts
At the end of the day, people are going to believe, or not believe the research that fits their preconceived views. Like anything that has a political spin on it, neither side is changing their mind regardless of what evidence is presented to support or disprove. There are topics on both sides of the aisle where you can say follow the money.
As far as the specific topic at hand, to deny that climate change in general is occurring or that we have seen glacial melt is just flat out stubborn and ignorant. The real topic that is up for fair debate is how much of that is actually caused by humans.
I’m usually reluctant to say I’m a liberal around here since that just means I’m an anti-American POS to the resident bilge rats. I have a far less extreme view on climate change than a lot of liberals. I certainly think we to an extent are having an impact, but I think more of it is just the planet doing what it does. You can certainly try to limit the effects that we have on climate, but you’re not going to stop the planet from its natural cycles. The planet has been here long before us and it’s going to be here long after it gets tired of us and flushes us down the toilet. I certainly don’t agree with rolling back all kinds of legislation aimed at reducing pollution because even without climate change we obviously don’t want to trash the planet anymore. I also don’t think we need to embark on a path of extreme measures and new legislation and all of this Green New Deal garbage.
Flame away since I’m sure something in my response won’t be liked lol.
As far as the specific topic at hand, to deny that climate change in general is occurring or that we have seen glacial melt is just flat out stubborn and ignorant. The real topic that is up for fair debate is how much of that is actually caused by humans.
I’m usually reluctant to say I’m a liberal around here since that just means I’m an anti-American POS to the resident bilge rats. I have a far less extreme view on climate change than a lot of liberals. I certainly think we to an extent are having an impact, but I think more of it is just the planet doing what it does. You can certainly try to limit the effects that we have on climate, but you’re not going to stop the planet from its natural cycles. The planet has been here long before us and it’s going to be here long after it gets tired of us and flushes us down the toilet. I certainly don’t agree with rolling back all kinds of legislation aimed at reducing pollution because even without climate change we obviously don’t want to trash the planet anymore. I also don’t think we need to embark on a path of extreme measures and new legislation and all of this Green New Deal garbage.
Flame away since I’m sure something in my response won’t be liked lol.
01-16-2020, 11:45 AM
#75
Admirals Club
How many of the dire climate predictions have actually come true since this global warming /climate change movement started? I know the polar bears are still here and NYC and Miami are still with us to name a few. Solar ad wind makes sense to me if I live in a remote area where utilities are available. Recycling is a good practice but when politicians get involved in any of these issues things tend to go south, California is a good example of this.
01-16-2020, 12:28 PM
#77
Senior Member
Originally Posted by Knoxes
Expecting someone to reduce their footprint to zero just because they advocate for conservation is pretty stupid. Everybody has an impact.
01-16-2020, 12:37 PM
#78
Admirals Club
Originally Posted by Knoxes
Expecting someone to reduce their footprint to zero just because they advocate for conservation is pretty stupid. Everybody has an impact.
01-16-2020, 12:39 PM
#79
Senior Member
Originally Posted by Knoxes
Expecting someone to reduce their footprint to zero just because they advocate for conservation is pretty stupid. Everybody has an impact.
For the record, the fuel burn I don't care about, but don't act like you're saving the world.
01-16-2020, 12:40 PM
#80
Senior Member
Originally Posted by WaterEnjoyer
true. but someone that is expecting a standing ovation because they downsized their personal jet so that they save 100 gallons of jet fuel a year is a little ridiculous as well.
