Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So I have been reading thru a couple of your links, and I have issues that I will post in upcoming threads.
Let me state again - this is just me looking at what you provided. It's not some disseminated talking point among conservatives.
For reference, I have a BS in Mechanical Engineering Technology and my math skills are still pretty decent (except for LaPlace Transforms which should be banned from the face of the earth - it's kinda like reverse calculus). I am just stating that I can keep up somewhat with these "experts".
I also understand the scientific method. The first step in the scientific method is observation.
Here's problem #1. They base the percent of glacier decline from the derived (their assumed calculations) size of the glacier from the 1850s. Sorry - not buying it. No observation.
The glacier’s maximum extent during the peak of the Little Ice Age (mid-nineteenth century) was determined from morainal evidence visible in satellite imagery from 2014/2015/2016. Glacier margins were digitized from aerial imagery taken in 1966, 1998, and 2005, and from satellite imagery acquired in 2015/2016.
So they basically took a guess on the size of the glaciers in the 1850s based on the last 50 years. That's not science. I am therefore not buying the percentages in the far right column.
At my school the science majors and the engineering majors had to suffer together through the same basic calculus classes. I liked the engineering majors, but they were not being trained in pure science. FWIW, one of our professors used to say, "Physicists and chemists make the scientific discoveries; engineers take those discoveries and make them practical by applying technology to them.
With all due respect, you think like an engineer, not a scientist.
Again, if you do a google search on before and after pictures of melting glaciers, you get plenty of valid hits. Here's one from National Geographic on YouTube which shows pictures of glaciers in Glacier National Park from c. 1900 to present. The changes are incredible and you can see them with your own eyes.
How long ago did the glacier near you melt and over how many years. These glaciers disappeared in hundred years because our climate is warming.
How do people adapt this rapidly with this population density. Chances are your glacier disappeared when there was a few thousand people lived on the earth.
Uh, it wasn't a glacier "near" here, that glacier was ALL OF here. At its peak it covered over half of North America. And you are correct, there were no people here at the time, because if there were they'd have been buried under 2 miles of ice. But now there ARE people here, by the tens of millions. You know why? Because mankind, in its capacity to adapt, discovered being right near giant bodies of fresh water was beneficial to our well-being.
Glaciers the world over didn't start disappearing a few dozen or even hundreds of years ago... they started disappearing roughly 15,000 years ago as Earth emerged from an ice age. It's still emerging from it and the Earth would still be warming whether human beings were on it or not. Any politician claiming they can control geological forces of this magnitude if only we hand them the reins of power should be laughed out of the public sphere. Instead we have masses of people ready to sign over their sovereignty to these charlatans.
Uh, it wasn't a glacier "near" here, that glacier was ALL OF here. At its peak it covered over half of North America. And you are correct, there were no people here at the time, because if there were they'd have been buried under 2 miles of ice. But now there ARE people here, by the tens of millions. You know why? Because mankind, in its capacity to adapt, discovered being right near giant bodies of fresh water was beneficial to our well-being.
Glaciers the world over didn't start disappearing a few dozen or even hundreds of years ago... they started disappearing roughly 15,000 years ago as Earth emerged from an ice age. It's still emerging from it and the Earth would still be warming whether human beings were on it or not. Any politician claiming they can control geological forces of this magnitude if only we hand them the reins of power should be laughed out of the public sphere. Instead we have masses of people ready to sign over their sovereignty to these charlatans.
Well you could have just indicated up front that it was North America. Sure glaciers disappeared over time this is over 100 years, so how do millions of people reliant on glaciers as a water source adapt in a few decades.
There is the Siachen glacier in the Kashmir region which is disputed territory between Pakistan and India, one of the largest glaciers in the world and its rapidly disappearing. Just how do those people and others around the world adapt.
So are you still disputing the reasons these glaciers around the globe are being impacted, are you making an argument that it is not warming.
Sounds like a waste of good taxpayer funded signage. Cant they just modify the 2's to look like 5's,or better yet 8's? They'd get so many more years of service out of them.
At my school the science majors and the engineering majors had to suffer together through the same basic calculus classes. I liked the engineering majors, but they were not being trained in pure science. FWIW, one of our professors used to say, "Physicists and chemists make the scientific discoveries; engineers take those discoveries and make them practical by applying technology to them.
With all due respect, you think like an engineer, not a scientist.
Again, if you do a google search on before and after pictures of melting glaciers, you get plenty of valid hits. Here's one from National Geographic on YouTube which shows pictures of glaciers in Glacier National Park from c. 1900 to present. The changes are incredible and you can see them with your own eyes.
You guys claim science, science, science - but when actually looking at the numbers and the methodology, it's often blank stares.
This is why I rarely go into the type of detail that I did last night - because there was no commentary on the content of what I brought forth - good or bad. I even pointed out where THEY claimed they messed up.
However, it kinda proves the point that this whole climate change and global warming stuff is faith based by the overwhelming majority of people. It's a religion. Faith is in whatever the scientists say regardless if it's right, wrong, or indifferent. They even have end time scenarios like Christianity.
Yes - as an engineer, I am practical. I understand melting occurs. It always has occurred... so does glacier growth. There is no practicality in continuing to proclaim the end of glaciers is near, and it's up to me to stop their demise.
If we are still coming out of an ice age then expect our border issues to get worse. If it’s scorched earth past Mexico due to increased temps and no rain, those people will be coming to our door for help.
That would mean that this border crisis will continue and a simple wall won’t help if millions are coming. A concrete or steel wall won’t hold that many back without turning into a shooting gallery.
All of human history is insignificant compared to geologic time scales. Your apocalyptic predictions are noted, like a squirrel’s fart in a hurricane.
At my school the science majors and the engineering majors had to suffer together through the same basic calculus classes. I liked the engineering majors, but they were not being trained in pure science. FWIW, one of our professors used to say, "Physicists and chemists make the scientific discoveries; engineers take those discoveries and make them practical by applying technology to them.
With all due respect, you think like an engineer, not a scientist.
And you are thinking like neither, because the best test of a hypothesis is not finding what agrees with it, but finding that which disagrees with it.
Engineers care about failures more because their real world application of science has real world consequences when they failed to account for that which contradicts their hypotheses. If 10,000 simulations shows a suspension bridge can handle 100 mph winds, and 10 simulations show that it cannot, an engineer will exhaustively test, retest and retest some more those 10 contradictory simulations a bazillion times because a suspension bridge failing in high winds is real world catastrophic. Engineers live in a word where poorly constructed null hypothesis testing that fails to account for all the variables and the importance of contradiction gets people killed.
A scientist without an agenda should aggressively seek out that which disproves their theories because those theories are what engineers apply to their craft. The practical result can be no stronger than the strength of the theory which underpins it. The weaker the theory, the flimsier the practical result.
There is evidence that directly contradicts various AGW hysteric hypotheses concerning glacier melt. These contradictory examples are not to be dismissed, but embraced and examined closely. If they disprove the theory as it stands, then proper science says either discard or update the theory to account for the new and contradictory information. That's how real science works. You do not dismiss evidence, observations and results that you don't like, nor can you casually lump them into some bucket called "marginal examples that aren't as prevalent in number as results we like, therefore, inconsequential." If 1 out of 1,000,000 observational/experimental results contradicts your hypothesis, that result must be subjected to diligent, detailed study, along with a good chunk of the results that you agreed with. Methodology, stanards, framework, exactness, mathematics, etc. Leave no stone unturned when a contradiction appears, but do not simply dismiss it because it opposes a consensus bias or accepted narrative.
Looking at the data, two glaciers actually grew in size between 2005 and 2015 (Lupfer and Salamander Glaciers).
Unless something drastically changes and the global heating is accelerated, just on a percentage basis trending from the past data points - most of those glaciers will still be there. They wouldn't melt fast enough to disappear.
To close out - as I said in problem #2, it is inconclusive if they are currently melting... or it may be a mixture of melting and growing. Glaciers by definition change dynamically. So in a sense - this is the normal process. And despite the continuing claims - we do not control the climate. So the glaciers will take of themselves in the normal heating and cooling process that has always existed.
However, now that they have changed the signs and put no date on them, and made their existence dependent on our behavior - there is the everlasting faulty assumption that we control their existence - which we don't.
I have spent enough of my evening on this.
I generally stay out of these climate discussions due to the level of sheer hysteria.
But I must applaud your crunching of the numbers. These threads (and others) are always characterized by people throwing studies and data around without even analyzing them. But you did.
Well you could have just indicated up front that it was North America. Sure glaciers disappeared over time this is over 100 years, so how do millions of people reliant on glaciers as a water source adapt in a few decades.
There is the Siachen glacier in the Kashmir region which is disputed territory between Pakistan and India, one of the largest glaciers in the world and its rapidly disappearing. Just how do those people and others around the world adapt.
So are you still disputing the reasons these glaciers around the globe are being impacted, are you making an argument that it is not warming.
Yeah genius, by saying warming is inevitable I'm making an argument it's not warming.
Jesus Lord, please tell me why I bother...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
