Glacier National Park is replacing signs that predicted its glaciers gone by 2020

[TexasRules]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/08/us/gl...rnd/index.html

The signs at Glacier National Park warning that its signature glaciers would be gone by 2020 are being changed.

The signs in the Montana park were added more than a decade ago to reflect climate change forecasts at the time by the US Geological Survey, park spokeswoman Gina Kurzmen told CNN.
In 2017, the park was told by the agency that the complete melting off of the glaciers was no longer expected to take place so quickly due to changes in the forecast model, Kurzmen said. But tight maintenance budgets made it impossible for the park to immediately change the signs.
The most prominent placards, at St. Mary Visitor Center, were changed last year. Kurzmen says that park is still waiting for budget authorization to update signs at two other locations.

But the glacier warning isn't being removed entirely, she told CNN. Instead, the new signs will say: "When they will completely disappear depends on how and when we act. One thing is consistent: the glaciers in the park are shrinking.

But....But.....climate change. How could they be wrong? It's science.

[Elegiac]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ge/1805232001/

RIP, Okjökull.

The first of Iceland's glaciers to disappear due to climate change will be memorialized with a plaque, which will be unveiled next month.

“This will be the first monument to a glacier lost to climate change anywhere in the world,” said anthropologist Cymene Howe of Rice University in Houston, in a statement. “By marking Ok’s passing, we hope to draw attention to what is being lost as Earth’s glaciers expire."

(The English name of the glacier is "Ok glacier")

"These bodies of ice are the largest freshwater reserves on the planet and frozen within them are histories of the atmosphere," Howe said. About 100 years ago, the glacier covered almost 6 square miles of a mountainside in western Iceland and measured 50 meters thick.

The plaque on the glacier reads: “In the next 200 years, all our glaciers are expected to follow the same path, This monument is to acknowledge that we know what is happening and what needs to be done. Only you know if we did it.”

The memorial will be officially unveiled during a ceremony in August.

"Ok was the first named Icelandic glacier to melt because of how humans have transformed the planet’s atmosphere," said Dominic Boyer, another Rice University anthropologist. "Its fate will be shared by all of Iceland’s glaciers unless we act now to radically curtail greenhouse gas emissions.”

Rice University is involved because Howe and other anthropologists from the university produced the documentary "Not Ok" about the glacier in 2018.

The memorial also carries the words “415ppm CO2,” referring to the record-breaking level of 415 parts per million of carbon dioxide recorded in the atmosphere in May this year, the Guardian said.

Not sure what your point is.

[s_bushido]

That's nice, dear. Now quote the rest of the article where they mention how much ice is being lost in other places.

You know what we do need more scientific study on, imo, is the motivation of those who cherry-pick crap like this to try and desperately cling to their denialism.

[Mormolyce]

I saw a guy bring a snowball into Congress, so clearly there's no such thing as climate change.

LOL.

[XDurionX]

That one guy got stabbed to death, so guns are not a problem.

[Nellise]

But....But.....climate change. How could they be wrong? It's science.

Why did you end your quote of the article there? The very next paragraph is: "In 2017, a study released by USGS and Portland State University said that in the past half century, some of the ice formations in Montana had lost 85% of their size and the average shrinkage was 39%."

And further down: "'There are variations in the climate but it is humans that have made all those variations warmer," he said. "The glaciers have been here for 7,000 years and will be gone in decades. This is not part of the natural cycle.'"

[Wyrt]

So, the overall message is that the glaciers shrunk by a significant amount, but weren't completely gone, therefore climate change is completely fake?

[Daedius]

I saw a guy bring a snowball into Congress, so clearly there's no such thing as climate change.

LOL.

Snow cone!

[unbound]

But....But.....climate change. How could they be wrong? It's science.

So you are claiming that you are ignorant of how science works? Cool. The first step to get better is admitting you have a problem.

Climate change science has been remarkable accurate considering the massive complexity of everything involved in climate. From the beginning, they have stated that there will be rising temperatures...globally that has been absolutely true.



Scientists have also been pretty clear that while the average will go up, it will not be equal across the board. With shifting weather patterns, some areas will get notably hotter than before, and some areas will actually be cooler.

This effect can be seen in the US the last several years as much of the continental US experienced moderate or cool temperatures while the west coast and Alaska was melting. This was largely due to the northern jetstream slowing down due to global warming, resulting in the jetstream traveling extremely far north (hence, Alaska got much warmer air) as well as traveling further south than normal (hence, much of the continental US got colder air).



So, yes, sometimes individual predictions of specific glaciers don't work out, but the majority of them are clearly melting away.



We are seeing literal gigatons of glacial melt at this point. You can point to a bad prediction here and there and try to laugh it away, but it doesn't change the fact that for every bad prediction there are hundreds more that are shown to be true.

[Kokolums]

The case against climate change is that the FUTURE predictions are wrong, not that glaciers haven't melted in the past. Credibility is fungible. People remember that the scientific community said we would have Peak Oil last decade and that oil reserves would start shrinking from there. The scientific community provided charts and graphs to prove their point. What NONE of the charts told you, however, was that as the price of oil rose, NEW oil pockets that were previously too expensive to tap would start coming online, increasing the supply. What the charts didn't tell you was that tech would improve to get oil out of the ground cheaper. So ALL the charts imploded and today oil reserves are massively higher.

THATS the case against climate change. The case is that simply extrapolating out a chart of global temperature is stupid because new tech might change the course. If solar replaces fossil fuels in 20 years, those charts are ALL wrong.

Credibility is fungible. People remember the scientific community getting Peak Oil wrong, so some will remain skeptical when they scream about climate change.

[ADA203]

Isn’t the Antarctic ice sheet growing while Arctic is shrinking? Kind of a paradox that scientists are having trouble figuring out.

[Shadowferal]

Isn’t the Antarctic ice sheet growing while Arctic is shrinking?

Wrong...try again.

[beanman12345]

So they are factually shrinking, just not completely gone by the estimated date. And so your conclusion is climate change is a hoax? right...

[Santti]

Isn’t the Antarctic ice sheet growing while Arctic is shrinking? Kind of a paradox that scientists are having trouble figuring out.

I believe you might be referring to how the melting ice is lowering the salinity of the sea around the ice, thus making it more susceptible to freezing. Meaning, that the ice is covering (temporarily) larger area, but the volume is still shrinking.

[Nnyco]

So you trying to look very dumb or whats your point?

[Endus]

The case against climate change is that the FUTURE predictions are wrong, not that glaciers haven't melted in the past.

That isn't an argument at all.

It's made-up nonsense by people who think their uninformed and unfounded assumptions should be given equal consideration to the actual scientific analysis and data.

Credibility is fungible. People remember that the scientific community said we would have Peak Oil last decade and that oil reserves would start shrinking from there. The scientific community provided charts and graphs to prove their point. What NONE of the charts told you, however, was that as the price of oil rose, NEW oil pockets that were previously too expensive to tap would start coming online, increasing the supply. What the charts didn't tell you was that tech would improve to get oil out of the ground cheaper. So ALL the charts imploded and today oil reserves are massively higher.

Not "the scientific community". Some particular scientists. With the caveats of "with current technology and costs". Which didn't turn out to hold true, as new technologies provided new options.

And that technological bump just changes where the tipping point is. Fossil fuels are a limited resource. They take millions of years to produce, and decades to exploit and destroy. That's not sustainable, obviously.

THATS the case against climate change. The case is that simply extrapolating out a chart of global temperature is stupid because new tech might change the course. If solar replaces fossil fuels in 20 years, those charts are ALL wrong.

Yeah, this is just completely wrong, and demonstrates that you likely haven't ever looked at any scientific reports on climate change. Here's the most comprehensive in recent history, so you can catch up with the absolute basics; https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

Literally every claim you made there is false.

Credibility is fungible. People remember the scientific community getting Peak Oil wrong, so some will remain skeptical when they scream about climate change.

And those people are knee-jerking based on a lack of comprehension, and a choice to remain willfully ignorant.

That's not something to be applauding.

[Ivanstone]

Credibility is fungible. People remember the scientific community getting Peak Oil wrong, so some will remain skeptical when they scream about climate change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil
"Hubbert's original prediction that US peak oil would occur in about 1970 appeared accurate for a time, as US average annual production peaked in 1970 at 9.6 million barrels per day and mostly declined for more than three decades after.[17] However, the use of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling caused US production to rebound starting in about 2005.[18] The U.S. became a net exporter of both oil and gas in 2018.[19] In addition, Hubbert's original predictions for world peak oil production proved premature.[9] Nevertheless, the rate of discovery of new petroleum deposits peaked worldwide during the 1960s and has never approached these levels since.[20]"

They weren't wrong. We're just in a phase where a lot of money needs to be expended to extract more oil from already discovered supplies. Shall we discuss how fracking companies can't seem to make any money? Its still a finite resource that will get progressively more expensive to get while still creating pollution and further exacerbating climate change.

Science is science, its all interconnected. Not all of the connections are known but remember "uncredible" science is the thing that brought you that computer you're using to whine about science.

[PC2]

Maybe the glacier will go away in the future, in which case people would have to adapt to those changes. Humans are transforming the planet based on our needs and inevitably that means the climate will be effected as a result. *shrug*

[Rasulis]

The case against climate change is that the FUTURE predictions are wrong, not that glaciers haven't melted in the past. Credibility is fungible. People remember that the scientific community said we would have Peak Oil last decade and that oil reserves would start shrinking from there. The scientific community provided charts and graphs to prove their point. What NONE of the charts told you, however, was that as the price of oil rose, NEW oil pockets that were previously too expensive to tap would start coming online, increasing the supply. What the charts didn't tell you was that tech would improve to get oil out of the ground cheaper. So ALL the charts imploded and today oil reserves are massively higher.

THATS the case against climate change. The case is that simply extrapolating out a chart of global temperature is stupid because new tech might change the course. If solar replaces fossil fuels in 20 years, those charts are ALL wrong.

Credibility is fungible. People remember the scientific community getting Peak Oil wrong, so some will remain skeptical when they scream about climate change.

But the experts were not wrong when they talked about peak oil. Oil companies, especially fracking oil companies, have been operating at loss for a decade. The market is finally catching up to the fact that these companies will never make money for their investors. Lets take a look at the stock value of some of the largest oil companies in the US.

Halliburton - one-third of its peak in 2014.
Schulmberger - also one-third of its peak in 2014.
Exxon - two-third of its peak in 2014.
EOG - two-third of its peak.
Continental Resources - less than half.

How about US Silica Holdings which was making tons of money supplying sand for fracking? The stock went down from a peak of $71.81 per share in 2014 to $5.73. Seventy three cents away from becoming penny stock.

Then there was Gasfrac Energy that was supposedly on the cusp of developing a breakthrough technology of waterless fracking. One word - “bankrupt.”

How about we look at QQQ ETF which is based on Nasdaq 100. No energy sector at all. That's pretty bad.

We could go on if you need more examples.

Just for emphasis. Aramco stock, the most profitable oil company in the world, one month after listing.

[Noxx79]

Maybe the glacier will go away in the future, in which case people would have to adapt to those changes. Humans are transforming the planet based on our needs and inevitably that means the climate will be effected as a result. *shrug*

How do you know people will adapt to those changes?