[sounding]

Originally Posted by Vermilion Villager

OK....It took awhile but was able to track this down.
In 2017 the Department of Interior, under direction of Ryan Zinke ordered the NPS to remove signs at Glacier National Park that had anything to do with melting of glaciers and climate change. Without getting political it doesn't take much of a search to see who's administration Mr. Zinke served under.. There were some signs in the park that said glaciers in glacier national Park could be gone as early as the year 2020. This is actually a true statement. Several of the 26 named glaciers are at a level that does not qualify them as glaciers anymore, and all 26 glaciers have seen a minimum of 40% and as high as 80% erosion in the last 50 years. This fact has absolutely nothing to do with the decision to remove the signs.
So move forward to the OP. A prior administration removes signs for political reasons, and those signs' removal leads the OP to conclude that the science is all wrong because the signs were removed...when in fact they were removed for political reasons. Everyone to get it now?.

Why was the last update in 2015 ... USGS glacier inventory data | U.S. Geological Survey

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

TV

A man was murdered and there was no place for anyone to get off the train. This is a better analogy and we all have to live with the murderer free. In this case, the train is earth and the murderer is Global Warming.

Okay.....??? Not sure how that relates, but I guess that might be an assumption on your part. You are assuming that the man was murdered and did not die naturally. That is the same with Climate Change (or Global Warming as you wish to change the terms). I used my analogy (perhaps not the greatest) to suggest that just because man exists and just because the climate changes, does not necessarily mean that man changed the climate. Just because there a people on the train and a person dies, does not mean he was murdered.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by sounding

Begging is not science, but data is -- and this data is very important ... If man caused global warming, and since global warming started when the Little Ice Age ended, then how did man end the Little Ice Age?

That is some seriously CONVOLUTED logic! The time SCALE of ICE AGES and natural warming periods involving hundreds of thousands of years has NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING to do with the time scale that we are living in. The ICE age references are just a DISTRACTOR like people sometimes use in debates to confuse the main issue. In the case that we are talking about the time scale is from the Industrial Revolution to today when the WORLD POPULATION has increased rapidly and MAN has CAUSED the earth to heat up AKA Global Warming.

I for one, don't intend to be distracted or impressed by references to ICE AGES. In fact, I would put that down as purposeful disinformation designed to muddy the issue and prevent social awareness and change toward a cleaner environment as free as possible from earth poisoning GREENHOUSE GASES!

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by sounding

Ok, you started off by naming the UN. They are not a reliable source of information -- here is just one example ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_IlgwmCkFE Tell me one UN climate forecast that has come true.

Just pick some detail and PECK AWAY at ALL the logic of my argument found in my post. That just CONFIRMS my overall LOGIC and reasoning! Thanks.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by sounding

Actually, my parents were impressed with my questions -- which is why the more I asked, the more they assisted ... with chemistry sets, biology kits, microscopes, geology kits, weather stations, library passes, and many books about science -- and I'm still asking questions -- for that's how you learn. By the way ... do you know how much "man-made" CO2 warmed the earth last year?

I answered that question in a previous post.

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

I keep trying, but this is becoming difficult. Basically, the whole KNOWN WORLD of scientists and lay people with open minds believe in MAN MADE Global Warming. It is just Global Misinformation addicts that believe otherwise and actually, the likely start of the misinformation happened back in 1980 when the OIL Companies wanted to protect their stock investments by saying that Global Warming was just a HOAX. So, they got out their large MEGAPHONE and MONEY and created Climate Dis-information and lies. Today, the Russian bots use disinformation to try to confuse America about Global Warming and whatever subject they can conjure up to divide AMERICA. They even start things
like Reptilian Liberals are going around America drinking baby's BLOOD. That is NO JOKE, that is how far disinformation has gone in the US.
.........I am basically knocking myself out to try and beg people to open their minds toward the generally accepted Science of MAN CAUSED Global Warming.

And the UN is trying to help the US strengthen alliances against Russia, China, and North Korea - all of which, would turn the US into SMOKING ASH if they ever got the opportunity to do that.

So, in order to be considered by you to have an "OPEN MIND" we have to agree with you? You have not presented adequate data. You have only theory of your so-called "experts/scientists" and incomplete data to make your supposition. I have not argued about air pollution, just the statement that man has caused the climate to change. Like I said, you have not proven your point. I am still waiting. Your using insults by accusing certain stories of accusations that someone is suggesting that certain people are "drinking children's blood." I have "opened" my mind to valid evidence, not some supposed "expert's" opinion or theory. I know that evidence supports the fact that the Earth was once tropical, then the ICE age and glaciers moved and created major earth formations in our country (and elsewhere) and then it warmed up again. I believe we had a "dust bowl" in our country and I also believe we have had a pollution problem in the world, which many folks are attempting to improve upon. Sorry, but someone being adamant about their opinion which is so easily swayed by elitist expert theories/opinions, with the absence of plausible evidence/data, does not easily change my view.
By the way, I DO believe that the Industrial Revolution period did cause a great influx of air pollution. That's a curse of progress, just as cleaning up air pollution by new and innovative means is also due to man's progress. Perhaps you would like to make the supposition that the higher the world's population, the higher the air pollution?

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by sounding

Why was the last update in 2015 ... USGS glacier inventory data | U.S. Geological Survey

You put a lot of weight on the observation that the last update was in 2015. Where did that number come from? Where is the data for pre-2015?

I suspect the answer to your question could be: The last update was in 2015 because the data was generated for a paper that was published in 2017. No newer papers, no newer data generation. No conspiracy at all, just the last time someone spent the time to do the work.

Perhaps instead of working so hard to identify conspiracies you could spend some time developing a 2021 data set to compare with the 1966, 1998, 2005, and 2015 data sets.

[Vermilion Villager]

Originally Posted by sounding

Why was the last update in 2015 ... USGS glacier inventory data | U.S. Geological Survey

Simple....The data always is 1 year behind. So 2016 data would've been posted in 2017. Again....do a search of what administration was in power in 2017 to answer why there was no 2016 report.

[sounding]

Originally Posted by Vermilion Villager

Simple....The data always is 1 year behind. So 2016 data would've been posted in 2017. Again....do a search of what administration was in power in 2017 to answer why there was no 2016 report.

Why has the government stopped reporting glacier status for the last 7 years, while the earth is a 7-year (soon to be 8-year) cooling trend?

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by tuccillo

Wow, quite a rant ;-) You really need to go reread my post. A good portion of it was addressing the silliness of using "greenhouse" and "blanket" as analogies for the impact of CO2 on the atmosphere. They are not good analogies. I personally don't buy into the dumbing down of scientific explanations, which "greenhouse" and "blanket" are. Be that as it may, it is almost universally accepted, by those that understand the science, that there has been some anthropogenic warming. This is based on both data (traditional and proxy) and radiative transfer theory. There are numerous peer reviewed journal articles that address this. There is some debate on the magnitude. There is also some debate on the magnitude of future warming (next 100 years or so) from climate models and which CO2 scenario is appropriate for the future. I suspect, but certainly don't know, that the atmosphere is less sensitive to CO2 than the climate models are showing. Modeling of non-linear systems is complicated. Analyzing results from these non-linear models is complicated. Sufficient computing power to reduce model resolutions (1km in the horizontal would be helpful) to the point where the closure schemes for parameterizing sub-grid scale processes ceases to become a significant point of uncertainty, and bias, is probably a decade away. Trends are important but so is a lack of bias for analyzing possible tipping points. Will we continue to warm? Yes, from both anthropogenic sources and the fact that we are in an interglacial period that started about 12,000 years ago. What can we do about it? Probably not much. We will continue to use fossil fuels, in great amounts, for the foreseeable future. There is just no getting around that. If the most pessimistic modeling projections for anthropogenic warming come to fruition, we will probably see substantial political unrest over the next 100 years or so (the time frame that modeling is looking at) as regional climates are impacted.

That WAS a very IMPRESSIVE post. Thank you, keep up the good, intelligent work. It is obvious, to me, that you know this subject well and are able to produce impressive vocabulary and logic on the subject.
.........I believe that we actually AGREE more than we DISAGREE.

I will concede that you are the expert in THIS field and I am but a LAYMAN

[sounding]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Just pick some detail and PECK AWAY at ALL the logic of my argument found in my post. That just CONFIRMS my overall LOGIC and reasoning! Thanks.

I'm not looking for logic. I'm looking for data because data defines science. A good piece of data regarding climate forecasts is finding a source that actually produces verified forecasts. So in order to have faith in a source, it's best to know if that source produces verifiable forecasts -- unless that source is not reliable. Can you identify just one UN forecast that verified?

[Vermilion Villager]

Originally Posted by sounding

Why has the government stopped reporting glacier status for the last 7 years, while the earth is a 7-year (soon to be 8-year) cooling trend?

That statement is the ultimate in FAKE NEWS!!!
Here's a post from the NWS in Minneapolis:
One would think a member of the "Weather Club" would be following things like this.

[tuccillo]

I am not actually doing any work, except working on my golf game. I am a retired research meteorologist. I developed atmospheric computer models for NASA and the National Weather Service. While my focus was on short term simulations, the same N-S equations are used for climate models as well as similar treatments of diabatic processes. While I didn't work directly on climate and climate simulations, I do understand the science to some degree and know people who do work on climate. There is a lot that we don't understand.

Those who actually understand the science will generally fall into 3 categories. Those who agree that there has been some anthropogenic warming but believe that the climate is relatively insensitive to increases in CO2 and there will be minimal impact. Those who agree that there has been some anthropogenic warming and we will continue to warm but believe it is not an existential threat and we will adapt. Those who agree that there has been some anthropogenic warming and future warming will pose an existential threat. I am in the middle group because of what I interpret as uncertainty in the computer models and the questionable reliance on the 8.5 scenario.

I hope you realize that the opinion of anyone who is not directly working on the problem is essentially worthless. Nobody who makes decisions cares. While you can attempt to adopt some practices that will reduce your own creation of CO2, you will not have any impact. You can vote for a political party that believes we don't have an issue or a political party that believes there is an existential threat but in reality your one vote is essentially meaningless. Unless you have solar panels on your roof, drive an electric car, avoid airlines, avoid the purchases of products made overseas that must be transported long distance via diesel engines, etc. then you can be accused of being a hypocrite. Solar panels and electric cars are not without a substantial initial CO2 footprint but may become carbon friendly if used long enough. You can try to influence other people's opinion but you have no credibility since you don't work in the field and your audience will primarily be people who already think the same way. In many regards, the political decision as to whether we have an issue has already been decided.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

That WAS a very IMPRESSIVE post. Thank you, keep up the good, intelligent work. It is obvious, to me, that you know this subject well and are able to produce impressive vocabulary and logic on the subject.
.........I believe that we actually AGREE more than we DISAGREE.

I will concede that you are the expert in THIS field and I am but a LAYMAN

[sounding]

Originally Posted by Vermilion Villager

That statement is the ultimate in FAKE NEWS!!!
Here's a post from the NWS in Minneapolis: Attachment 95672
One would think a member of the "Weather Club" would be following things like this.

1. That didn't answer the glacier question.
2. That Minneapolis information is cherry picking. Just plot the NOAA "global" temperature data and/or the Satellite "global" temperature for the last 7 years -- then draw a trend line. This is frequently presented in the Weather Club.

[Vermilion Villager]

Originally Posted by sounding

1. That didn't answer the glacier question.
2. That Minneapolis information is cherry picking. Just plot the NOAA "global" temperature data and/or the Satellite "global" temperature for the last 7 years -- then draw a trend line. This is frequently presented in the Weather Club.

10 years of data is not cherry picking. If using your theory that the world is actually cooling then surely you must agree that during a 10 year period It is highly improbable that a city in the northern part of the northern hemisphere does not have one record low temperature in a 10 year period… But does have 14 record high temperatures. Your glacier question demands affirmation of your statement. Sorry....the world is not cooling just because you say it is. I seen people like you before… You try to portray yourself as the educated scientist simply stating facts that the rest of us are too unintelligent to understand. Anyone disputing your statements is immediately branded as someone who doesn't understand the facts. When does this weather club meet? There are several of us that like to attend your next meeting. That should be wild!