sooooo... this particular timing of monitored 'glacier mass balance' retreat, particularly over the most recent 50 years or so, this is just a part of a "normal 11th retreat"? Do those "normal retreats" typically turn on a dime?
Climate change threatens to strip identity of Glacier National Park
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
sooooo... this particular timing of monitored 'glacier mass balance' retreat, particularly over the most recent 50 years or so, this is just a part of a "normal 11th retreat"? Do those "normal retreats" typically turn on a dime?
We all have our areas of expertise. Law, medicine, engineering, agriculture etc. etc, and it doesn't matter what industry we are in, most of us will listen to the experts in the field.
But with climate science it is not about science but instead about politics. Few people on either side of the debate have any real understanding of the issue and watching people try and promote or refute a position with cherry picked puzzle pieces is probably what it is like for a mechanic to watch two people who know nothing about cars debate the problem from a left/right perspective as if somehow the better debater fixes the problem.
The same people who wouldn't for a moment question the theories of astrophysicists, astronomers, anthropologists and a hundred other scientific disciplines whose researchers rarely reach consensus will easily dismiss the 97% of climate scientists as being part of some super elaborate global hoax or conspiracy.
What a bunch of maroons.
For me, I don't need scientists to tell me that my environment is contaminated and the weather is changing. I'm old enough and spend enough time outside that the real conspiracy would be trying to pass off that nothing is happening.
But with climate science it is not about science but instead about politics. Few people on either side of the debate have any real understanding of the issue and watching people try and promote or refute a position with cherry picked puzzle pieces is probably what it is like for a mechanic to watch two people who know nothing about cars debate the problem from a left/right perspective as if somehow the better debater fixes the problem.
The same people who wouldn't for a moment question the theories of astrophysicists, astronomers, anthropologists and a hundred other scientific disciplines whose researchers rarely reach consensus will easily dismiss the 97% of climate scientists as being part of some super elaborate global hoax or conspiracy.
What a bunch of maroons.
For me, I don't need scientists to tell me that my environment is contaminated and the weather is changing. I'm old enough and spend enough time outside that the real conspiracy would be trying to pass off that nothing is happening.
I post them because partly because you are so passionate on the topic.
It's good to have a different perspective.
Reality is an ideal topic to be passionate about.
97% of 33% is not a consensus and association and **** amount to $1000 a year bimonthly magazine subscriptions. Nobody has gotten together and voted. That sh-t just doesn't happen.
gfb said:
97% of 33% is not a consensus and association and **** amount to $1000 a year bimonthly magazine subscriptions. Nobody has gotten together and voted. That sh-t just doesn't happen.
That 33% is for papers that actually address the question of global warming.
It make 0% sense to us the other climate change papers when looking at the consensus on global warming because they don't actually address that part of the discipline.
It would be like trying to find the consensus on pesticide use and it's affect on bees and include every single study on bees in your consensus report.
This is the sixth time I've had to explain this to you.
It's getting more embarrassing than your delusional premise that fossil fuel subsidies don't exist.
It make 0% sense to us the other climate change papers when looking at the consensus on global warming because they don't actually address that part of the discipline.
It would be like trying to find the consensus on pesticide use and it's affect on bees and include every single study on bees in your consensus report.
This is the sixth time I've had to explain this to you.
It's getting more embarrassing than your delusional premise that fossil fuel subsidies don't exist.
That 66% is not people.
It's papers that did not address the question or did not have global warming as the focus.
Why would you include papers that have nothing to do with global warming in your search for a concensus on global warming?
Authors aren't people?
Read the article it is sourced from before you say even more crazy sh-t. Use a dictionary or get some to help you if needed.
Read the article it is sourced from before you say even more crazy sh-t. Use a dictionary or get some to help you if needed.
Approximately two-thirds of abstracts did not take a position on the causes of global warming, for various reasons (e.g. the causes were simply not relevant to or a key component of their specific research paper). Thus in order to estimate the consensus on human-caused global warming, it's necessary to focus on the abstracts that actually stated a position on human-caused global warming.
The Cook et al. (2013) 97% consensus result is robust
The Cook et al. (2013) 97% consensus result is robust
huh! Go fetch... you want me to "go fetch"? Ok, which IPCC iteration, which IPCC report and which "Rothlisberger... Frederick or Hans or Regine or ???" and which "Rothlisberger" paper?
Read the abstract: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf/1748-9326_8_2_024024.pdf
Abstract
Subfossil remains of wood and peat from six Swiss glaciers found in proglacial fluvial sediments indicate that glaciers were smaller than the 1985 reference level and climatic conditions allowed vegetation growth in now glaciated basins. An extended data set of Swiss glacier recessions consisting of 143 radiocarbon dates is presented to improve the chronology of glacier fluctuations. A comparison with other archives and dated glacier advances suggests 12 major recession periods occurring at 9850- 9600, 9300-8650, 8550-8050, 7700-7550, 7450-6550, 6150-5950, 5700-5500, 5200-4400, 4300-3400, 2800-2700, 2150-1850, 1400-1200 cal. yr BP. It is proposed that major glacier fluctuations occurred on a multicentennial scale with a changing pattern during the course of the Holocene. After the Younger Dryas, glaciers receded to a smaller extent and prolonged recessions occurred repeatedly, culminating around 7 cal. kyr BP. After a transition around 6 cal. kyr BP weak fluctuations around the present level dominated. After 3.6 cal. kyr BP less frequent recessions interrupted the trend to advanced glaciers peaking with the prominent ‘Little Ice Age’. This trend is in line with a continuous decrease of summer insolation during the Holocene.
Indeed!
Abstract
Subfossil remains of wood and peat from six Swiss glaciers found in proglacial fluvial sediments indicate that glaciers were smaller than the 1985 reference level and climatic conditions allowed vegetation growth in now glaciated basins. An extended data set of Swiss glacier recessions consisting of 143 radiocarbon dates is presented to improve the chronology of glacier fluctuations. A comparison with other archives and dated glacier advances suggests 12 major recession periods occurring at 9850- 9600, 9300-8650, 8550-8050, 7700-7550, 7450-6550, 6150-5950, 5700-5500, 5200-4400, 4300-3400, 2800-2700, 2150-1850, 1400-1200 cal. yr BP. It is proposed that major glacier fluctuations occurred on a multicentennial scale with a changing pattern during the course of the Holocene. After the Younger Dryas, glaciers receded to a smaller extent and prolonged recessions occurred repeatedly, culminating around 7 cal. kyr BP. After a transition around 6 cal. kyr BP weak fluctuations around the present level dominated. After 3.6 cal. kyr BP less frequent recessions interrupted the trend to advanced glaciers peaking with the prominent ‘Little Ice Age’. This trend is in line with a continuous decrease of summer insolation during the Holocene.
You have no answers, you post questions that you believe provide insights, however, it's only more rhetoric and diversion.
It is a very reasonable assessment that your butthurt is all that is allowing you to forward such ridiculous diversions and commentary
http://m.hol.sagepub.com/search?ful...ulltext=phrase&src=selected&journal_set=sphol
Papers out the yin yang.
If you look.
Papers out the yin yang.
If you look.
I can very quickly list a whose who of global scientific bodies that have formally declared a position supporting the theory of anthropogenic climate change.
By your logic you should be able to counter with an equally relevant academy who does not subscribe to AGW at the rate of 2:1. We both know you couldn't field 5 respected academies with an official counter position.
no - you thought you were cutesy-significant by bringing up an Arctic sea-ice related prediction (made by a smallish number of individuals)... as quoted below, I simply asked you what that had to do with the OP... what it had to do with glacier retreat:I suggest you focus on the only thing remaining for you to contribute around here... repeat, ad nauseum, how others you don't agree with are "butthurtin" and link your butthurtin pics. Always best to go with your strengths!
Climate change or AGW Climate change? They need an AGW stance correct?
https://apeg.bc.ca/getmedia/a39ff60...APEGBC-Climate-Change-Position-Paper.pdf.aspx
I got this in the mail. Is there a stance?
