[sounding]

Originally Posted by Pairadocs

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?

[Worldseries27]

Originally Posted by sounding

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.

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

[skarra]

Why is it sunny today when yesterday it was raining?

Must be a conspiracy.

[PersonOfInterest]

Originally Posted by sounding

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.

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

[Love2Swim]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

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.

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.

[Love2Swim]

Originally Posted by Worldseries27

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

Good one.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

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.

Originally Posted by Love2Swim

Thank you. Some common sense on this thread for a change.

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.

[YeOldeCurmudgeon]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

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.

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.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by YeOldeCurmudgeon

Here he goes again.

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????

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"

[Halbraun]

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.

[NoMo50]

Follow the money.

[Byte1]

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."

[rogerrice60]

Originally Posted by sounding

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.

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!

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

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????

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"

??? 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.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

??? 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.