et pet

Officials at Glacier National Park making changes...

Recommended Posts

  Came across this : http://www.alt-market.com/articles/3796-glacier-national-park-quietly-removes-its-gone-by-2020-signs , thought it might be of interest to some.

 

Glacier National Park Quietly Removes Its ‘Gone by 2020’ Signs

Sunday, 09 June 2019 17:15 Roger I. Roots

glacierpark1.jpg

This article was written by Roger I. Roots  

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.)

The centerpiece of the visitor center at St. Mary near the east boundary is a large three-dimensional diorama showing lights going out as the glaciers disappear. Visitors press a button to see the diorama lit up like a Christmas tree in 1850, then showing fewer and fewer lights until the diorama goes completely dark. As recently as September 2018 the diorama displayed a sign saying GNP’s glaciers were expected to disappear completely by 2020. "  http://www.alt-market.com/articles/3796-glacier-national-park-quietly-removes-its-gone-by-2020-signs 

  I found the entire article very interesting and well worth reading in it's entirety...

 Maybe a few others will find it worth reading, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So they were out by a few decades or even a century or so. Good news they didn't go as fast as predicted.  I'm not sure about the articles claims that the fears of them receding were 'hysterical' claims. They are still predicted to recede and disappear are they not?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

9 hours ago, DrP said:

So they were out by a few decades or even a century or so. Good news they didn't go as fast as predicted.  I'm not sure about the articles claims that the fears of them receding were 'hysterical' claims. They are still predicted to recede and disappear are they not?

 Agreed, Good news.

   Cannot disagree about the author's subjective description, either. But, to be honest, there has been no shortage of 'hysterical' claims from all sides of that issue.

   As far as predictions - no shortage of those either! And, again, some of those could also subjectively be perceived as 'hysterical'.

   Though not a prediction, I tend to lean toward what I see as an objective view that glaciers will continue to be glaciers, always in a state of flux , continuing to advance or recede in response to climate changes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, et pet said:

   Though not a prediction, I tend to lean toward what I see as an objective view that glaciers will continue to be glaciers, always in a state of flux , continuing to advance or recede in response to climate changes.

Is that how you got the job? Continuing to insist King Kong, lives...

Edited by dimreepr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, et pet said:

   As far as predictions - no shortage of those either! And, again, some of those could also subjectively be perceived as 'hysterical'.

Others... not so much.

NASA’s Long-Term Climate Predictions have Proven to be Very Accurate, Within 1/20th of a Degree Celsius
https://www.universetoday.com/142324/nasas-long-term-climate-predictions-have-proven-to-be-very-accurate-within-1-20th-of-a-degree-celsius/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Others... not so much.

NASA’s Long-Term Climate Predictions have Proven to be Very Accurate, Within 1/20th of a Degree Celsius
https://www.universetoday.com/142324/nasas-long-term-climate-predictions-have-proven-to-be-very-accurate-within-1-20th-of-a-degree-celsius/

   The universetoday article cites https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20190523/ which is :

    "   NASA News & Feature Releases

     New Studies Increase Confidence in NASA's Measure of Earth's Temperature

     Posted May 23, 2019

A new assessment of NASA's record of global temperatures revealed that the agency's estimate of Earth's long-term temperature rise in recent decades is accurate to within less than a tenth of a degree Fahrenheit, providing confidence that past and future research is correctly capturing rising surface temperatures. " https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20190523/

    iflscience  cites the same :

   https://www.iflscience.com/environment/nasas-global-temperature-measurements-are-now-accurate-to-a-staggering-degree/

   " NASA's Global Temperature Measurements Are Now Accurate To A Staggering Degree

   Researchers have improved the uncertain temperature measurements conducted by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) to incredible precision. As reported in Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, the GISS Surface Temperature (GISTEMP) measurements’ uncertainty has shrunk to just 0.05°C (0.09°F) for data collected in recent decades and to 0.15°C (0.27°F) for measurements taken 140 years ago, when the records began. " https://www.iflscience.com/environment/nasas-global-temperature-measurements-are-now-accurate-to-a-staggering-degree/

                                                                                                    ------------------

      The full .pdf of the Confidential manuscript submitted to JGR-Atmospheres can be viewed at this link : https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2018JD029522?referrer_access_token=e-qrSTkjxxuK6-ChAc6jhsOuACxIJX3yJRZRu4P4erv2Vv4GlToQ-tlD0FQx1b5F0U96-0e0NleQaIeT5ORs8HAFrr3XaN5hvmrg7PgUKvAczG303b46ZfjF3jqDxkZrUP89NXTr6qwCGmX5XhYAKA%3D%3D 

    "  Improvements in the uncertainty model in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies Surface Temperature (GISTEMP) analysis

Nathan J. L. Lenssen Gavin A. Schmidt, James E. Hansen, Matthew J. Menne, Avraham Persin, Reto Ruedy, Daniel Zyss  

                              NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, New York, USA 

               Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA

            Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions, Columbia University Earth Institute, New York, New York, USA

                                                            SciSpace LLC, New York, New York, USA

                         Key Points :

                        •   A total uncertainty analysis for GISTEMP is presented for the first time

                        •   Uncertainty in global mean surface temperature is roughly 0.05◦ C in recent decades increasing to 0.15◦C in the 19th Century.

                        •   Annual mean uncertainties are small relative to the long term trend.

                        •   The warmest year on record (so far) was 2016 with 86% confidence

       Abstract    We outline a new and improved uncertainty analysis for the Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) Surface Temperature product version 4 (GISTEMP v4). Historical spatial variations in surface temperature anomalies are derived from historical weather stationdata and ocean data from ships, buoys and other sensors. Uncertainties arise from measurement uncertainty, changes in spatial coverage of the station record, and systematic biases due to technology shifts and land cover changes. Previously published uncertainty estimates for GISTEMP included only the effect of incomplete station coverage. Here, we update this term using currently available spatial distributions of source data, state-of-the-art reanalyses and incorporate independently derived estimates for ocean data processing, station homogenization and other structural biases. The resulting 95% uncertainties are near 0.05◦C in the global annual mean for the last 50 years, and increase going back further in time reaching 0.15◦C in 1880. In addition, we quantify the benefits and inherent uncertainty due to the GISTEMP inter polation and averaging method. We use the total uncertainties to estimate the probability for each record year in the GISTEMP to actually be the true record year (to that date), and conclude with 86% likelihood that 2016 was indeed the hottest year of the instrumental period (so far). "    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2018JD029522?referrer_access_token=e-qrSTkjxxuK6-ChAc6jhsOuACxIJX3yJRZRu4P4erv2Vv4GlToQ-tlD0FQx1b5F0U96-0e0NleQaIeT5ORs8HAFrr3XaN5hvmrg7PgUKvAczG303b46ZfjF3jqDxkZrUP89NXTr6qwCGmX5XhYAKA%3D%3D 

    To me, it seems like the manuscript is more about the accuracy of measurements of surface temperatures not the accuracy of previous predictions.

    But, it would probably best to read it for yourself, to see how you interpret the manuscript.

   Thanks, John Cuthber for the interesting input. 

Edited by et pet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, et pet said:

   Though not a prediction, I tend to lean toward what I see as an objective view that glaciers will continue to be glaciers, always in a state of flux , continuing to advance or recede in response to climate changes.

 

An objective view would tell you that glaciers will not always continue to be glaciers. Sometimes they turn into water and drain away. In 1850, Glacier National Park had 150 glaciers. Today there are 25 active glaciers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_glaciers_in_Glacier_National_Park_(U.S.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, zapatos said:

An objective view would tell you that glaciers will not always continue to be glaciers. Sometimes they turn into water and drain away. In 1850, Glacier National Park had 150 glaciers. Today there are 25 active glaciers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_glaciers_in_Glacier_National_Park_(U.S.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_glaciers_in_Glacier_National_Park_(U.S.)

     List of glaciers in Glacier National Park (U.S.)                                                                                                                      There are at least 35 named glaciers in Glacier National Park (U.S.). At the end of the Little Ice Age about 1850, the area containing the national park had 150 glaciers. There are 25 active glaciers remaining in the park today. Since the latest interglacial period began 10,000 years ago, there have been regular climate shifts causing periods of glacier growth or melt-back. The glaciers are currently being studied to see the effect of global warming[1] It is estimated that if current warming trends continue, there will be no glaciers left in the park by 2030. "  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_glaciers_in_Glacier_National_Park_(U.S.)

 From the opening paragraph : " the end of the Little Ice Age about 1850...the latest interglacial period began 10,000 years ago...regular climate shifts causing periods of glacier growth or melt-back... "
     Then the estimate :  "... if current warming trends continue, there will be no glaciers left in the park by 2030 " 
 
         " 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. 
           As recently as September 2018 the diorama displayed a sign saying GNP’s glaciers were expected to disappear completely by 2020. " http://www.alt-market.com/articles/3796-glacier-national-park-quietly-removes-its-gone-by-2020-signs
 
     Yes, glaciers melt and drain away, during interglacial periods :        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interglacial
           "An interglacial period (or alternatively interglacialinterglaciation) is a geological interval of warmer global average temperature lasting thousands of years that separates consecutive glacial periods within an ice age. The current Holocene interglacial began at the end of the Pleistocene, about 11,700 years ago."         https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interglacial
 
       " How long can we expect the present Interglacial period to last?

   No one knows for sure. In the Devils Hole, Nevada, paleoclimate record, the last four interglacials lasted over ~20,000 years with the warmest portion being a relatively stable period of 10,000 to 15,000 years duration. This is consistent with what is seen in the Vostok ice core from Antarctica and several records of sea level high stands. These data suggest that an equally long duration should be inferred for the current interglacial period as well. Work in progress on Devils Hole data for the period 60,000 to 5,000 years ago indicates that current interglacial temperature conditions may have already persisted for 17,000 years. Other workers have suggested that the current interglacial might last tens of thousands of years.  "   https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-long-can-we-expect-present-interglacial-period-last?qt-news_science_products=0#qt-news_science_products

      I still tend to lean toward what I see as an objective view that glaciers will continue to be glaciers, always in a state of flux , continuing to advance or recede in response to climate changes.                                                                                        I base this view on the Earths history of Glacial/Interglacial Cycles.   

    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/abrupt-climate-change/Glacial-Interglacial Cycles

        " Glacial-Interglacial Cycles   

      Large, continental ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere have grown and retreated many times in the past. We call times with large ice sheets “glacial periods” (or ice ages) and times without large ice sheets “interglacial periods.” The most recent glacial period occurred between about 120,000 and 11,500 years ago. Since then, Earth has been in an interglacial period called the Holocene. Glacial periods are colder, dustier, and generally drier than interglacial periods. These glacial–interglacial cycles are apparent in many marine and terrestrial paleoclimate records from around the world.

      What causes glacial–interglacial cycles?

      Variations in Earth's orbit through time have changed the amount of solar radiation Earth receives in each season. Interglacial periods tend to happen during times of more intense summer solar radiation in the Northern Hemisphere. These glacial–interglacial cycles have waxed and waned throughout the Quaternary Period (the past 2.6 million years). Since the middle Quaternary, glacial–interglacial cycles have had a frequency of about 100,000 years (Lisiecki and Raymo 2005). In the solar radiation time series, cycles of this length (known as “eccentricity”) are present but are weaker than cycles lasting about 23,000 years (which are called “precession of the equinoxes”).  "   https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/abrupt-climate-change/Glacial-Interglacial Cycles

   Yes, zapatos, during Interglacial Periods, "sometimes" Glaciers turn into water and drain away. Then, during Glacial Periods, "sometimes" water turns into Ice and forms Glaciers.

   So, though still not a prediction, I tend to lean toward what I see as an objective view that glaciers will continue to be glaciers, always in a state of flux , continuing to advance or recede in response to climate changes.

    

Edited by et pet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That’s like saying an ice cube will continue to be an ice cube, always in a state of flux, continuing to be a cube even in response to temperature changes. 

Perhaps you’ve never encountered an actual ice cube in your travels, but anyone who has encountered ice cubes can quickly agree that such a claim is rather ignorant. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, iNow said:

That’s like saying an ice cube will continue to be an ice cube, always in a state of flux, continuing to be a cube even in response to temperature changes. 

    No, it is more "like saying"  :     "  Since the latest interglacial period began 10,000 years ago, there have been regular climate shifts causing periods of glacier growth or melt-back.  "    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_glaciers_in_Glacier_National_Park_(U.S.) 

   Which is similar to me saying : what I see as an objective view that glaciers will continue to be glaciers, always in a state of flux , continuing to advance or recede in response to climate changes

  

2 hours ago, iNow said:

Perhaps you’ve never encountered an actual ice cube in your travels, but anyone who has encountered ice cubes can quickly agree that such a claim is rather ignorant. 

   It was you, iNow, that made the ice cube "claim" :

2 hours ago, iNow said:

That’s like saying an ice cube will continue to be an ice cube, always in a state of flux, continuing to be a cube even in response to temperature changes. 

   It was you that made that "claim", iNow.  Refer to it as "rather ignorant" if you  must.

   However, I refuse to say anything about it, other than that it was you, iNow, that made that "claim", 

Edited by et pet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, et pet said:

more "like saying"  :     "  Since the latest interglacial period began 10,000 years ago, there have been regular climate shifts causing periods of glacier growth or melt-back.  "  

Nobody disputes this.

57 minutes ago, et pet said:

Which is similar to me saying : what I see as an objective view that glaciers will continue to be glaciers, always in a state of flux , continuing to advance or recede in response to climate changes

Except, no. It’s not. Sometimes they melt entirely and are gone forever, like what’s happening at an increasing rate today due to increases in global average annual temperatures. 

58 minutes ago, et pet said:

Refer to it as "rather ignorant" if you  must.

Well, if the shoe fits... though I do appreciate your permission to accurately describe your above assertion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, et pet said:

glaciers will continue to be glaciers

Not many people are foolish enough to claim that no glaciers have disappeared due to climate change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, iNow said:

Nobody disputes this.

   Good.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Except, no. It’s not. Sometimes they melt entirely and are gone forever, like what’s happening at an increasing rate today due to increases in global average annual temperatures. 

Please read :    

       " How long can we expect the present Interglacial period to last?

   No one knows for sure. In the Devils Hole, Nevada, paleoclimate record, the last four interglacials lasted over ~20,000 years with the warmest portion being a relatively stable period of 10,000 to 15,000 years duration. This is consistent with what is seen in the Vostok ice core from Antarctica and several records of sea level high stands. These data suggest that an equally long duration should be inferred for the current interglacial period as well. Work in progress on Devils Hole data for the period 60,000 to 5,000 years ago indicates that current interglacial temperature conditions may have already persisted for 17,000 years. Other workers have suggested that the current interglacial might last tens of thousands of years.  "   https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-long-can-we-expect-present-interglacial-period-last?qt-news_science_products=0#qt-news_science_products

      I still tend to lean toward what I see as an objective view that glaciers will continue to be glaciers, always in a state of flux , continuing to advance or recede in response to climate changes.                                                                                        I base this view on the Earths history of Glacial/Interglacial Cycles.   

    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/abrupt-climate-change/Glacial-Interglacial Cycles

        " Glacial-Interglacial Cycles   

      Large, continental ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere have grown and retreated many times in the past. We call times with large ice sheets “glacial periods” (or ice ages) and times without large ice sheets “interglacial periods.” The most recent glacial period occurred between about 120,000 and 11,500 years ago. Since then, Earth has been in an interglacial period called the Holocene. Glacial periods are colder, dustier, and generally drier than interglacial periods. These glacial–interglacial cycles are apparent in many marine and terrestrial paleoclimate records from around the world.

      What causes glacial–interglacial cycles?

      Variations in Earth's orbit through time have changed the amount of solar radiation Earth receives in each season. Interglacial periods tend to happen during times of more intense summer solar radiation in the Northern Hemisphere. These glacial–interglacial cycles have waxed and waned throughout the Quaternary Period (the past 2.6 million years). Since the middle Quaternary, glacial–interglacial cycles have had a frequency of about 100,000 years (Lisiecki and Raymo 2005). In the solar radiation time series, cycles of this length (known as “eccentricity”) are present but are weaker than cycles lasting about 23,000 years (which are called “precession of the equinoxes”).  "   https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/abrupt-climate-change/Glacial-Interglacial Cycles

   Yes, zapatos, during Interglacial Periods, "sometimes" Glaciers turn into water and drain away. Then, during Glacial Periods, "sometimes" water turns into Ice and forms Glaciers.

   Yes, iNow, as I said to zapatos, before during Interglacial Periods, "sometimes" Glaciers turn into water and drain away. Then, during Glacial Periods, "sometimes" water turns into Ice and forms Glaciers.

   Gone forever, or gone until the next Glacial Period?                                                                                                                                                 

59 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Not many people are foolish enough to claim that no glaciers have disappeared due to climate change.

    Did you miss the following that I Posted previously, zapatos, about only 25 active Glaciers remaining out of ~150, since 1850, in Glacier National Park alone? 

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_glaciers_in_Glacier_National_Park_(U.S.)

     List of glaciers in Glacier National Park (U.S.)                                                                                                          There are at least 35 named glaciers in Glacier National Park (U.S.). At the end of the Little Ice Age about 1850, the area containing the national park had 150 glaciers. There are 25 active glaciers remaining in the park today. Since the latest interglacial period began 10,000 years ago, there have been regular climate shifts causing periods of glacier growth or melt-back. The glaciers are currently being studied to see the effect of global warming[1] It is estimated that if current warming trends continue, there will be no glaciers left in the park by 2030. "  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_glaciers_in_Glacier_National_Park_(U.S.)

 

   I do not know of anyone ever making any "claim" that "no glaciers have disappeared due to climate change."!!    

    I have never ever even read or heard that anyone has ever made that "claim" anywhere at any time!!

   As far as this Thread, zapatos, no one has been " foolish enough to claim that no glaciers have disappeared due to climate change."

 

Edited by et pet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, et pet said:

Gone forever, or gone until the next Glacial Period?             

Gone forever. Once it melts, it's gone. This remains true even if in future glacial periods new glaciers happen to form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, et pet said:

I do not know of anyone ever making any "claim" that "no glaciers have disappeared due to climate change."!!    

    I have never ever even read or heard that anyone has ever made that "claim" anywhere at any time!!

   As far as this Thread, zapatos, no one has been " foolish enough to claim that no glaciers have disappeared due to climate change."

Your childish antics are fooling no one and they are taking away from the debate. We all know the meaning of what you've said and you trying to obfuscate their meaning with your hand-wavy tactics are just making you look foolish. It would have been much simpler to simply say "yes, that may not have been quite accurate" and move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some glaciers will still be glaciers. Some will be in deep valleys at high latitudes that never get direct sunlight - and would take more warming than we are expecting to melt. A bit like 'ice free Arctic Ocean' will still have some ice in inlets that never see the sun ("ice free" being a term that includes the presence of such ice). Predictions from leading glaciologists and specialist science agencies (rather than secondary re-interpretations and media reports) of how rapidly global warming causes glaciers to retreat and when they ultimately stop being glaciers have never been precise and have included a lot of clearly stated uncertainty. And considering a 'worst case' scenario will always give a very different answer to 'most likely' - and worst case outcomes are more likely to get the attention once the discussion moves outside the realms of experts talking with experts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, iNow said:

Gone forever. Once it melts, it's gone. This remains true even if in future glacial periods new glaciers happen to form.

     There seems to be some kind of misunderstanding going on here...

     Yes, iNow, the Glacier that melts completely away is gone.

     Any Glacier that forms in that same spot in any future glacial period, even if it is in THAT EXACT SAME PLACE, will not be THAT EXACT SAME GLACIER. I concur with that.

     Now, what I would like to ask of you is this : Do you suppose that any Glaciers will ever again form in any of the the same places as the ~125 that have melted, in any future Glacial Periods?   
     If you can say yes, then you may possibly be able to understand that that is what I meant, and still mean, when I say glaciers will continue to be glaciers, always in a state of flux, continuing to advance or recede in response to climate changes. If you can say yes, then we are in agreement, albeit we expressed ourselves differently.

      If you can honestly state that a Glacier will never ever again form in any of those ~125 places in any future Glacial Period, then I cannot concur with that.

Edited by et pet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

Some glaciers will still be glaciers. Some will be in deep valleys at high latitudes that never get direct sunlight - and would take more warming than we are expecting to melt. A bit like 'ice free Arctic Ocean' will still have some ice in inlets that never see the sun ("ice free" being a term that includes the presence of such ice). Predictions from leading glaciologists and specialist science agencies (rather than secondary re-interpretations and media reports) of how rapidly global warming causes glaciers to retreat and when they ultimately stop being glaciers have never been precise and have included a lot of clearly stated uncertainty. And considering a 'worst case' scenario will always give a very different answer to 'most likely' - and worst case outcomes are more likely to get the attention once the discussion moves outside the realms of experts talking with experts.

Not sure how many have seen this doco...I highly recommend it 

Follow National Geographic photographer James Balog across the Arctic as he deploys time-lapse cameras designed for one purpose: to capture a multi-year record of the world's changing glaciers. As frightening and fascinating as it is breathtakingly beautiful, CHASING ICE is a hymn to our changing planet, and a plea for its salvation

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

Some glaciers will still be glaciers. Some will be in deep valleys at high latitudes that never get direct sunlight - and would take more warming than we are expecting to melt. A bit like 'ice free Arctic Ocean' will still have some ice in inlets that never see the sun ("ice free" being a term that includes the presence of such ice). Predictions from leading glaciologists and specialist science agencies (rather than secondary re-interpretations and media reports) of how rapidly global warming causes glaciers to retreat and when they ultimately stop being glaciers have never been precise and have included a lot of clearly stated uncertainty. And considering a 'worst case' scenario will always give a very different answer to 'most likely' - and worst case outcomes are more likely to get the attention once the discussion moves outside the realms of experts talking with experts.

    Thanks, Ken Fabian, for the breath of fresh air!!!

   From what I have learned, the Glacial/Interglacial Cycles are part of our Earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, beecee said:

Not sure how many have seen this doco...I highly recommend it 

Seconded. I saw and believe even posted about this here a few years ago. Informative film. 

38 minutes ago, et pet said:

Do you suppose that any Glaciers will ever again form in any of the the same places as the ~125 that have melted, in any future Glacial Periods?   

Maybe. “Any future period” offers a lot of options

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I may...

Peppering Et Pet with numerous negative points is totally inappropriate.
He is correct !

There have been numerous changes in the climate of this little blue planet over the preceding aeons.
Climate change HAS occurred, and will continue to occur; and glaciers will come and go ( as they did in my area of the world 12000 yrs ago ).
And he has provided support for his assertions that the causal factors are due to the changes of the Earth's orbit, and the combined effects of three cycles with some secondary factors like albedo, currents, and even volcanic/asteroid activity.

What we should be discussing instead is ANTHROPOGENIC climate change, and how to alleviate that problem.
We have no control over the Earth's orbit, but man-made climate change is a different topic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, iNow said:

Gone forever. Once it melts, it's gone. This remains true even if in future glacial periods new glaciers happen to form.

It only needs to be cold enough at elevation for glaciers to form. Just because a particular glacier dries up doesn't mean another one can't follow it's place. A particular glacier is not special.

Edited by StringJunky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, MigL said:

If I may...

Peppering Et Pet with numerous negative points is totally inappropriate.
He is correct !

There have been numerous changes in the climate of this little blue planet over the preceding aeons.
Climate change HAS occurred, and will continue to occur; and glaciers will come and go ( as they did in my area of the world 12000 yrs ago ).
And he has provided support for his assertions that the causal factors are due to the changes of the Earth's orbit, and the combined effects of three cycles with some secondary factors like albedo, currents, and even volcanic/asteroid activity.

What we should be discussing instead is ANTHROPOGENIC climate change, and how to alleviate that problem.
We have no control over the Earth's orbit, but man-made climate change is a different topic

   Thanks, MigL, for another breath of fresh air!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MigL said:

Peppering Et Pet with numerous negative points is totally inappropriate.

Wasn’t me 

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

It only needs to be cold enough at elevation for glaciers to form. Just because a particular glacier dries up doesn't mean another one can't follow it's place

Totally agree 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

What we should be discussing instead is ANTHROPOGENIC climate change, and how to alleviate that problem.

Precisely, though that’s hardly the intent of our OP. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, iNow said:

Wasn’t me 

Totally agree 

Precisely, though that’s hardly the intent of our OP. 

  I never thought it was.

  Agree.

  Heartily agree.  -   Incidentally, just what do you perceive as the "intent of our OP"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now