Glacier Silence
 

In 2019 Glacier National Park (GNP) quietly removed numerous posters claiming that all glaciers would be gone by 2020. They used our tax monies to create those fake signs (with great public attention) and then removed them -- quietly. And now something else has gone quiet. They would annually post a glacier report listing the status of each mapped glacier. They stopped producing those valuable reports 7 years ago. In essence, they are denying tax payers important glacier status information. For those who attend the Weather Club, you already know that surface and satellite temperature data have shown a slow cooling trend for the last 7 years -- the same years GNP has been silent. We should demand better value for tax monies.

Fact check: Misleading data in claim alleging a global cooling trend

Cherry picking data.

Dunno. Some of that "science" resembles the Wicked Witch of the West consulting her crystal ball.

Why are the GNP folks hiding the last 7 years of glacier data, especially when they previously produced those reports every year?

Ahhh, but they claim the statement is only PARTLY FALSE. The decimal point was in the wrong place, BUT it still shows some cooling, even if not as much as stated. AND there is no absolute proof that suggests that it is mankind's cause that any change has occurred.

The article you reference only produces more misinformation and DOES NOT discount the FACT that the earth has been in a 7-year cooling trend. Just click on the NOAA Temperature link which that article provides, and look at the temperature DATA (and not the narrative) -- and be sure you look at the "Annual" data (not just one particular month). Then plot the temperature data from 2015 to 2021, then add a linear trend line -- and behold reality. I plot this data monthly, both NOAA and and Satellite data (both government data) -- and they both show the same cooling trend. Scientists worldwide are analyzing the same, with the same results -- but the media refuses to acknowledge DATA -- because data always exposes propaganda. You'll will also see that this cooling trend will become an 8-year cooling trend by Dec 31st, because the 2022 data also shows cooling -- which is part of the reason why hurricanes have dramatically dropped during the last 2 years. This and much more DATA is presented in the Weather Club.

So a 7-year trend that shows cooling is more significant than a 150-year trend that shows warming but a 150-year trend that shows warming is not more significant than a 4-million year trend that shows cooling? Is it the time span that matters or the trend that matters?

I used to attend the Weather Club but stopped when it became (or I realized that it was) a platform for only a particular point of view.

Yes, times scales are very important with respect climate, because there are many concurrent cycles which contribute to the earth's climate -- from millions of years to tens of years -- some are in a warming cycle while others are in a cooling cycle -- all sun driven. When taking the summation of all the cycles to the present -- you get the resultant -- which during the last 7 years shows cooling -- and soon to be an 8-year cooling trend. I have no doubt this trend will warm again in the future -- just like it has for millions of years. But isn't it curious that for the past 7 years, glacier data is being withheld, active volcanoes under both the north and south poles are rarely mentioned, record breaking coral growth is rarely mentioned, and the list goes on and on -- but the most telling story is why all this cooling is happening and yet CO2 keeps skyrocketing upwards. Again, the Weather Club presents relevant, government data that you will not hear in the media -- and the attendees can form their own views.

This must be the fifth or sixth time, so PLEASE, stop confusing the indoctrinated die-hard climate change activists WITH THE FACTS

Things are getting a bit hot here… might add to Global Warming. err I mean Climate Change. I forgot that they switched…. That way, any Up/Down would apply then.

Short, because I don't want to be part of this argument....

- If the last 7 year shows cooling and there is no doubt it will show warming again then it certainly isn't a data point for your argument.

- Yes, it is curious, but it does not show a conspiracy. There could be other explanations like a lack of budget to provide the data, a lack of interest, or a suspicion that the data is being intentionally misinterpreted and misused. It is also possible that it could be an attempt to hide the data but asserting only that possibility seems very much like confirmation bias.

- Why is cooling happening yet CO2 is skyrocketing? By your own admission and, I believe previous assertions, climate change cannot be measured over a small number of years. One cold winter is not an indication of an impending ice age any more than one hot summer is an indication of global climate change. Small cycles are not significant.

And Fact Check is totally correct and accurate all the time! It's on the internet so it has to be legitimate and truthful. :a20::a20::a20::a20:

Many years ago, Carl Sagan demonstrated the difference between climate and weather. A man walking slowly and steadily up a beach represented the climate, while his dog , represented weather, ran ahead of him then behind in a random pattern. Weather can be local and seem erratic and change rapidly over short periods of time. Climate is more stable and changes over longer time periods.
Some are using short term weather phenomena to debunk climate change. Cherry picking weather data to disprove climate change is misusing and misrepresenting the reality of what has been going on with climate change globally.

So why is the earth cooling?

Could be a variety of explanations, but, if you have been a careful observer of the dissemination of "statistics" on a wide variety of subjects and areas of interest, be it weather, the economy, immigration, Covid information, etc. etc. etc., you have surely noticed that the "flow" of accurate statistical information depends on if supports the political policy of the day, or runs counter to the desired "official" policy. Or to put it another way, it's more the George Orwell world of statistics control. In other words, maybe right now it would not be "good" for common folk in the masses, to know all the details of exactly what the situation is concerning glaciers of North America. As tax payers, we undoubtedly finance a great deal of statistical measuring and recording concerning celestial bodies also, but what part of the would be "good" for us to know, and what would be considered "unwise" to share with the masses, who knows ? That's why we have such a wide, deep, gulf in our political views in this country: the difference in the classic sense of the "progressive", in which the elite own a kind of debt to society in general (the masses) to guide them in the correct direction, to make decisions for their own good, in a kind of government/citizen relationship modeled after a benevolent parent/child relationship. The opposite philosophy would be to promote universal education, and create not just a "democracy", but a government format that promotes individual decision making and personal responsibility, could be called a democratic REPUBLIC to distinguish it from a "democracy" ? Long answer but, that may be why we the people, we the tax payers, have "parents" (government) who protect us by selectively choosing which information it would be best for us to have, and which would not.

Why is the earth now cooling?

call a meeting and your entire group can vote its outrage next tuesday

Why is it sunny today when yesterday it was raining?

Must be a conspiracy.

Get out and play a little more Golf, then some pickleball and finish up with some Bocce', and stop worrying about Glaciers and GNP.

Thank you. Some common sense on this thread for a change. And for what its worth, NASA says the earth is not cooling. Despite short-term ups and downs, the evidence shows that our planet is steadily accumulating heat. And what scientists have found is that the balance of energy in the Earth system is out of whack: Our lower atmosphere is warming, the ocean is accumulating more energy, land surfaces are absorbing energy, and Earth’s ice is melting. I believe in the scientists, not some Villages club that clearly has an agenda.

:1rotfl: Good one.

This can't be serious. No way. This is the complete antithesis of "common sense"

The analogy describing the difference between weather and climate is fine. But then........

"Cherry picking weather data" ---All we've heard from the climate change advocates is "the last 15 years are the warmest on record", over, and over, and over again. Now they criticize the opposition for using short term weather to describe a trend????? Can anyone spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y?????? I believe it was Gozer the Gozerian in the original Ghostbusters that condemned the team by their own words--no sorry, thoughts. (It was Rameses in "The Ten Commandments" that condemned his own people by his words)

The reality: The last 7, or 15, or 150 years tells us ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about 100,000-year cycles occurring within the last 4 million years of our current ice age.

Here he goes again. :rolleyes:

A fool will never admit his foolishness. What does it matter. He will die before things get serious enough for him to worry about it. It's his grandchildren's problem. The thing is the 150 years mark the time when the Industrial Revolution began and that's the problem.

First of all, keep your personal insults to yourself, the moderators tend to frown on that.

So, once again, I'll try to educate the indoctrinated:

The premise seems to be "the last 150 years is the problem" because there is a slight warming trend.

What about the 150 year period from 34,850 t0 34,700 BC? From 345,250 to 345,100 BC? From 2,657,550 to 2,657,400 BC???????

Oh, no data???? Yet no problem drawing a "conclusion" about the last 150 years????:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

And they draw that conclusion since that is when man started burning fossil fuels.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc---which translates as "after this, therefore because of this". It is the battle cry of those who embrace faulty cause and effect "reasoning"

But I certainly agree with one thing----"a fool will never admit his foolishness":1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

From GNP website… so not silent at all.
 

Will the glaciers be gone by 2020?
You may have heard about Glacier National Park updating some exhibits that referenced research that indicated that the park's glaciers could be gone by 2020 or 2030. Those exhibits were updated in 2019 to better reflect the latest science.

In 2003, researchers published an academic paper about two of the park's glaciers in the Journal of BioScience. They used a geospatial computer model to predict the advance or retreat of Blackfoot Glacier and Jackson Glacier for each decade from 1990 to 2100 based on melting rates from historical data. Since Blackfoot and Jackson are relatively large glaciers, many people hypothesized that if those two glaciers were completely melted then all the other glaciers in the park likely would be as well. A few years later the researchers looked again at how fast Blackfoot and Jackson were shrinking and found that they seemed to be melting faster than they first predicted. Informally, the researchers moved their 2030 date up to 2020. These predictive dates spread widely and were featured on various exhibits around the park. Since then, the exhibits have been updated to reflect more recent research.

Though the park's glaciers are all getting smaller, variations in snow avalanches, ice flow dynamics, and ice thickness cause some glaciers to shrink faster than others. Sometimes a glacier will retreat very quickly where it was thinly and widely spread, only to shrink much more slowly when only the shaded, high elevation ice remains.

Follow the money.

Climate.gov--
"Over at least the past million years, glacial and interglacial cycles have been triggered by variations in how much sunlight reaches the Northern Hemisphere in the summer, which are driven by small variations in the geometry of Earth’s orbit around the Sun. But these fluctuations in sunlight aren’t enough on their own to bring about full-blown ice ages and interglacials. They trigger several feedback loops that amplify the original warming or cooling. During an interglacial,
sea ice and snow retreat, reducing the amount of sunlight the Earth reflects;
warming increases atmospheric water vapor, which is a powerful greenhouse gas;
permafrost thaws and decomposes, releasing more methane and carbon dioxide; and
the ocean warms and releases dissolved carbon dioxide, which traps even more heat.

These feedbacks amplify the initial warming until the Earth’s orbit goes through a phase during which the amount of Northern Hemisphere summer sunlight is minimized. Then these feedbacks operate in reverse, reinforcing the cooling trend."

Global warming
 

In the 60's "Global Cooling" was a MAJOR CONCERN for the environmentalist; they claimed the build up of ice would tip the earth off it's axis. All is well, God is in control!

??? You complain about insult, then immediately insult everyone who accepts mainstream science and the finest minds and latest findings by calling us "the indoctrinated". Now that is an insult.
Climatologists have the data you claim doesn't exist. It is written in the earth itself. In the rocks, the fossils.
And, "cause and effect" is not always faulty. You use it every time you play golf. We all do.
So, believe what you wish, and be content with the probability that the ocean will not drown us in our beds. And, let those of us who accept the finding of those scientists actually working in the field of climatology believe what we do.

To quote someone above, "Here we go again"

First of all, calling an individual a fool is an insult, referring to a large group of people who embrace a myth "indoctrinated" is simply factual. You are in essence objecting to someone calling Jim Jones' followers "cultists".

So accept the conclusions of WHICH scientists? Obviously, the ones that promulgate the myth of anthropogenic climate change. Then marginalize the rest???? And don't quote that bogus 90% agree garbage. We all know who gets the government grants and who gets the tenured university positions. Even a college student who raises his hand and states he doesn't believe in climate change caused by man will get slammed by the professor.

Which scientists? The ones you don't want to believe.
Embracing a myth? What if you are wrong and it isn't a myth, but truth? Would it be an insult then? Since we accept the evidence as correct, then your "indoctrinated" comment is an insult.
Government grants? Hmm? Are you intimating an International Climate Conspiracy? That is kind of what it seems like to me.
One thing we can both agree on is, I will not change what you believe, and you will not change what I believe.
So, I wish you a birdie on every hole but one. On that one hole, I wish you an Ace.y

Thanks for identifying how science becomes corrupted -- by voting. Voting is not used in the Weather Club -- only data -- and how data confirms or rejects theories. Voting is used in politics to create consensus, which of course is not how science works. As Einstein said, "Genius abhors consensus, because when consensus is reached, thinking stops."

Thank you for the golfing best wishes:)

And I do accept the evidence as correct----but the evidence shows little to no impact on climate due to human activity---so no "insult" there.

International Climate Conspiracy? I don't think so, but it is pretty clear that government grants, tenured professorships, and even an "A" in a college course is highly dependent on proposing the political "flavor of the month" theories. I guarantee you, that today, if you apply for a grant to prove mankind has nothing to do with climate change, YOU WILL BE DENIED. Same for applying for the chair of the paleoclimatology department at UCLA. Fifty years ago, you would have denied a grant if you proposed that the world would not run out of oil in 20 years. That's just the way it is.

You didn’t really think they were paying for it did you? That’s what we’ve been trying to tell everyone, the tax payers pay for everything!

You have anything to back this wild statement up? Reason I'm asking is I've been going to GNP for many years....close to 40 to be exact. I've hiked almost every inch of it......I've NEVER EVER seen any sign claiming there would not be any glaciers in the park come 2020. Surly someone in this weather club could produce ONE sign. I'll wait......:icon_bored:

Everything I say I can back up with data ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afa6mMMuZhg

Glacier National Park is replacing signs that predicted its glaciers would be gone by 2020 - CNN

I’ve been there many times and remember seeing the signs and displays.

Could it be that the facts don't align with the Left's narrative?

And that reply just about describes why it's impossible these days to have a sensible disagreement, or debate, on any subject.
Politics!:shrug:

Yes it is possible -- for those who are willing to look at the data -- which is why the Weather Club grows in numbers after each session.