Glacier National Park Quietly Removes Its ‘Gone by 2020’ Signs

Montana Glacier National Park Mountains Cracker Lake

Glaciers Appear to be Growing, not Melting in Recent Years

By Roger I. Roots, J.D., Ph.D.,

Founder, Lysander Spooner University

May 30, 2019. St. Mary, Montana. Officials at Glacier National Park (GNP) have begun quietly removing and altering signs and government literature which told visitors that the Park’s glaciers were all expected to disappear by either 2020 or 2030.
In recent years the National Park Service prominently featured brochures, signs and films which boldly proclaimed that all glaciers at GNP were melting away rapidly. But now officials at GNP seem to be scrambling to hide or replace their previous hysterical claims while avoiding any notice to the public that the claims were inaccurate. Teams from Lysander Spooner University visiting the Park each September have noted that GNP’s most famous glaciers such as the Grinnell Glacier and the Jackson Glacier appear to have been growing—not shrinking—since about 2010. (The Jackson Glacier—easily seen from the Going-To-The-Sun Highway—may have grown as much as 25% or more over the past decade.)

The centerpiece of the visitor center at St. Mary near the east boundary is a large three-dimensional diorama showing lights going out as the glaciers disappear. Visitors press a button to see the diorama lit up like a Christmas tree in 1850, then showing fewer and fewer lights until the diorama goes completely dark. As recently as September 2018 the diorama displayed a sign saying GNP’s glaciers were expected to disappear completely by 2020.

Video of the diorama two years ago.

But at some point during this past winter (as the visitor center was closed to the public), workers replaced the diorama’s ‘gone by 2020’ engraving with a new sign indicating the glaciers will disappear in “future generations.”

Almost everywhere, the Park’s specific claims of impending glacier disappearance have been replaced with more nuanced messaging indicating that everyone agrees that the glaciers are melting. Some signs indicate that glacial melt is “accelerating.”
A common trick used by the National Park Service at GNP is to display old black-and-white photos of glaciers from bygone years (say, “1922”) next to photos of the same glaciers taken in more recent years showing the glaciers much diminished (say, “2006”). Anyone familiar with glaciers in the northern Rockies knows that glaciers tend to grow for nine months each winter and melt for three months each summer. Thus, such photo displays without precise calendar dates may be highly deceptive.

Last year the Park Service quietly removed its two large steel trash cans at the Many Glacier Hotel which depicted “before and after” engravings of the Grinnell Glacier in 1910 and 2009. The steel carvings indicated that the Glacier had shrunk significantly between the two dates. But a viral video published on Wattsupwiththat.com showed that the Grinnell Glacier appears to be slightly larger than in 2009.

The ‘gone by 2020’ claims were repeated in the New York Times, National Geographic, and other international news sources. But no mainstream news outlet has done any meaningful reporting regarding the apparent stabilization and recovery of the glaciers in GNP over the past decade. Even local Montana news sources such as The Missoulian, Billings Gazette and Bozeman Daily Chronicle have remained utterly silent regarding this story.

(Note that since September 2015 the author has offered to bet anyone $5,000 that GNP’s glaciers will still exist in 2030, in contradiction to the reported scientific consensus. To this day no one has taken me up on my offer. –R.R.)

Additional Facebook video from Roger Roots.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
340 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bryan A
June 6, 2019 10:10 am

Go visit the park with Post-it Notes asking “What happened to the “Gone By 2020″ claim?” and stick them to the diaramas

pokerguy
Reply to  Bryan A
June 6, 2019 12:02 pm

May 30, 2019. St. Mary, Montana. Officials at Glacier National Park (GNP) have begun quietly removing and altering signs and government literature which told visitors that the Park’s glaciers were all expected to disappear by either 2020 or 2030.

Why not 2025?

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  pokerguy
June 6, 2019 2:18 pm

While the NPS were making their claims bogus claim, they should have been specific:

Under a bright relentless sun and 425 ppm of CO2 on September 14, 2024 at 3:45 pm the last glacial block of ice will turn to slush and disappear in a melt pool of blue water.

Todd
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
June 10, 2019 9:34 am

CO2 is lower than optimal. More CO2 more plants. If planet warms longer planting seasons. Wins for all.

Bryan A
Reply to  pokerguy
June 6, 2019 2:44 pm

they did need to work on their signage though. It indicated that the glaciers have only been growing for the last 7000 years…7000 years ago there were no glaciers there and the climate is only removing them again. (back to where they were 7000 years ago)

Robert B
Reply to  Bryan A
June 6, 2019 3:11 pm

There have been glaciers there since 7000 years ago, not necessarily for the whole 7000. It wasn’t long ago that they thought the existing glaciers were only about 500 years old.

Michael Moir
Reply to  Robert B
June 6, 2019 10:02 pm

Absolutely correct

Bruce M Gelman
Reply to  pokerguy
June 8, 2019 3:38 pm

All this ego identification with people who believe and dont believe wont get us anywhere.Just observe how flora and fauna behave.Forget about opinions.Forget about your egoic position.You are identifying self with opinion and that just leads to anger ,hate ,and war.

Eric Elsam
Reply to  Bryan A
June 6, 2019 6:31 pm

You’ll be accused of being a fascist climate denier.

brobert
Reply to  Eric Elsam
June 6, 2019 11:20 pm

yes, and they will remove your videos from youtube.

Loydo
Reply to  Eric Elsam
June 7, 2019 6:37 am

Fascist? I think that is going a bit too far, well maybe not in Roger’s case: “I used to read the writings of Adolf Hitler” Roots said. But when you see a bald-faced lie like “Glaciers Appear to be Growing, not Melting in Recent Years” in the first line and no one challenges it…

The ‘evidence’ that supports this story? Roger saying to camera: “I believe that its actually gotten larger”. Yep that it, thats the evidence. A new low bar. And to then to turn around and say the park “may be highly deceptive”? and no one checked, no one said anything. Wow.

Yes it is a lie, the vast majority of the world’s glaciers are shrinking and the shrinking is accelerating. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-glacier-mass-balance

john
Reply to  Loydo
June 7, 2019 7:24 am

Meanwhile, you and your friends are looking in theother direction. Completely disinterested in the truth of the matter.

F1nn
Reply to  Loydo
June 7, 2019 10:25 am

Loydo

Did you take that “Fascist” a bit personally?

We know “Mein Kampf” is your guide, but you can´t keep it just yourself.

Why they are taking off those signs if glaciers are melting? Have you been there? If not, you don´t know.

Loydo
Reply to  F1nn
June 7, 2019 3:02 pm

That results in this headline “Glaciers Appear to be Growing, not Melting in Recent Years”. All because Roger “believed” it. You’re sticking with that?

Pop Piasa
Reply to  F1nn
June 7, 2019 8:34 pm

While some glaciers are shrinking, others are growing. Evidence that the planet doesn’t act as a single unit, just like the fact that the poles are where global warming is most significant on the planet.
If you study paleoclimatology, worldwide glacial growth is not a predominant feature of the planet’s existence thus far, and is not congruent with climatic optimums where humanity has prospered.
Loydo, you need a more inclusive perspective to achieve enlightenment on this.

Loydo
Reply to  F1nn
June 7, 2019 10:31 pm

“Loydo, you need a more inclusive perspective to achieve enlightenment on this.”

I’m not sure what you mean Pop. Relatively few glaciers are growing and as far as I can tell no evidence Grinnell Glacier is. What am I not including? What I don’t think we need to include is made up stuff by someone from a made up University.

dollops
Reply to  Loydo
June 7, 2019 11:41 am

“.. the vast majority of .. ”
Proving absolutely nothing whether true or not. The only climate change that would seriously impact life on Earth would be a return of the nearly 100,000 years of “ice age”.

Reply to  Loydo
June 7, 2019 12:17 pm

Indeed, I think we would all like to see more articles like this with a little more hard data in them.

ironargonaut
Reply to  Loydo
June 10, 2019 9:51 pm

Where do you see this “first line”? Has this article been edited? By the way nice strawman did you have fun knocking him down? You changed what Roots wrote ” Teams from Lysander Spooner University visiting the Park each September have noted that GNP’s most famous glaciers such as the Grinnell Glacier and the Jackson Glacier appear to have been growing—not shrinking—since about 2010.” into supposedly him claiming all the glaciers on the planet are growing with no evidence. Somehow mentions of specific glaciers by name becomes “world’s glaciers”. You knocked down something that was never claimed.
It appears that you are the one attempting to deceive not Roots.

Me
Reply to  Eric Elsam
June 7, 2019 2:04 pm

Climate change is fascist science, no science involved. The Nazis repressed all science that did not agree with their political views. We are currently in a mini ice age. The sun has gone into a decrease sun spot cooling cycle. Its called the Maunder Minimum.

Tarrasik
Reply to  Me
June 8, 2019 1:08 am

No, Nazi Germany was way ahead of the US, UK and the rest of the world in real science. At the end of the war, the allies auctioned off German patents for pennies. I have read it was over 300,000 patents. It is regarded as the largest theft of intellectual property in human history, and the value was many times that of the Marshall plan.

For fake science you need look no farther than the Leftists of the time, namely the Bolshevik Communists. For example, they adopted Lysenkoism on purely ideological grounds, causing mass starvation in the USSR.

Note that global warming is a purely Leftist phenomenon, as is most fake science.

ironargonaut
Reply to  Tarrasik
June 10, 2019 10:00 pm

if they got pennies for them at an auction then that is obviously what they were worth otherwise someone would have paid more.
You mean “real science” like claiming one race is superior to all others in everything? Please spare us, they twisted science to what fit them best just like all totalitarian societies do. Soviets did some good science also, but as your example shows science that didn’t fit the mantra was suppressed.

Midwestfd
Reply to  Bryan A
June 7, 2019 10:10 am

That’s EXACTLY what I was thinking!

Maundar Minimum
Reply to  Bryan A
June 7, 2019 1:52 pm

under the glass, and nail it shut!

Santa
Reply to  Bryan A
June 8, 2019 10:49 pm

These warningsigns will be gone by 2020??

Duster
Reply to  Bryan A
June 9, 2019 11:12 pm

Tony Heller has a nve video about this and another about Australian ABC forcasting “floods and droughts.”

Tony makes the point that the GNP glaciers formed around seven thousand years ago(?). Then turns to 19th and early 20th C news paper stories that foretold the demise of the rapidly melting galciers by the early 1920s. When this failed eventuate the date was pushed forward, several times. Current snow situations probably will stave of the end a bit longer (/sarc).

Tony’s video can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jWOnCKfEYc.

Neil Heckman
Reply to  Bryan A
June 12, 2019 1:06 pm

oh my god, you people are so ignorant. this is fake news.

Reply to  Neil Heckman
June 12, 2019 2:57 pm

Unfortunately [you’re] the one who’s ignorant and wearing blinders.

Betty Pfeiffer
Reply to  Anthony Watts
June 12, 2019 3:35 pm

LOL, pot calling kettle black.

Betty Pfeiffer
Reply to  Anthony Watts
June 12, 2019 3:41 pm

For example its you’re not your’re

Reply to  Betty Pfeiffer
June 12, 2019 3:44 pm

Ooohh big win for the grammar and spelling nazi. [Fixed]

Jack Dale
Reply to  Anthony Watts
June 12, 2019 4:38 pm

For example, it is “it’s” not “its”.

Mark Broderick
June 6, 2019 10:17 am

Why does anyone care about frozen water on the top of inhospitable, uninhabitable mountains, slowly turning back into water ? Sheesh……

J Mac
Reply to  Mark Broderick
June 6, 2019 11:08 am

Why does anyone create fraudulent dioramas for public indoctrination display in our popular national parks?

joel
Reply to  J Mac
June 6, 2019 12:16 pm

Visit the Smithsonian. In the Presidents room showing those Presidents who had trouble in office (Nixon, Andrew Johnson, Clinton), the Clinton display was closed for updating during the 2016 election cycle.
All corruption and politics.

Don Pearce
Reply to  joel
June 6, 2019 9:48 pm

The smitsonian also deny claims of the Austrian who flew two years before the Wright brothers due to having signed an agreement with the Wright brothers estate to acquire items for display.

Spalding Craft
Reply to  J Mac
June 7, 2019 5:15 am

If they’d stick with the facts there wouldn’t be any problem. Without doubt glaciers at GNP and elsewhere have shrunk over the last century or so. We all know the planet has warmed, probably partially caused by agw. The NPS could leave it at that, but since it’s government policy to promote the agw meme, they can’t help themselves.

To me, the poster child of shrinking glaciers is the Columbia Ice Fields at Banff/Jasper Parks, which I have visited 5 times since the early 50’s. The maps there tell an unmistakeable story. But they are still a magnificent sight, and reason enough to return to that part of the world.

Jon
Reply to  Spalding Craft
June 8, 2019 7:17 pm

I to have been to the Athabasca glacier. My observation was completely different than yours. There are posts showing where the glacier terminated at different dates. What struck me was that the glacier had retreated significantly in 1895. And continued to do so gradually through the decades. My takeaway was that these glaciers have been retreating more or less uniformly for over one hundred years! And it’s there for all to see. Science.

Spalding Craft
Reply to  Jon
June 9, 2019 2:43 pm

Now how was your observation “completely different” from mine?

Jon
Reply to  Spalding Craft
June 9, 2019 2:47 pm

Maybe I was mistaken, but it seems you were implying that the shrinkage was man made, I observed the opposite. If we see eye to eye then ignore my comment!

Mark Whitney
Reply to  J Mac
June 7, 2019 5:31 am

Here in Salt lake City at the Natural History Museum, University of Utah campus they have a path back through the geologic ages. Of course it dutifully begins in the “Anthropocene”.

HotScot
Reply to  Mark Broderick
June 6, 2019 11:25 am

Mark Broderick

As with the Arctic and Antarctic, what’s the point of frozen water and perfectly useful frozen land?

commieBob
Reply to  Mark Broderick
June 6, 2019 11:42 am

I care. I would miss the wonderful North and South Saskatchewan rivers. link

When I was a child, the shrinking glaciers were a fact of life and nobody was getting upset. As far as I can tell, those glaciers have been shrinking for the whole Holocene.

Bryan A
Reply to  commieBob
June 6, 2019 12:08 pm

They’ve been gradually diminishing since they were at the extremities of the once great laurentide sheet ice

griff
Reply to  Mark Broderick
June 6, 2019 12:55 pm

Well, it is a major source of the drinking water in some of the planet’s largest rivers, plus in places like the Alps a foundation of their ski/tourist industry.

Millions of people depend on them, that’s why -and climate change is removing them at an accelerated rate since 1990.

LdB
Reply to  griff
June 6, 2019 6:32 pm

Can’t drink it when it’s frozen Griff, you kicked an own goal.

R Shearer
Reply to  griff
June 6, 2019 6:54 pm

Wrong, as you usually are.

ray boorman
Reply to  griff
June 6, 2019 7:02 pm

Got any proof for that claim, Griff?

Aren’t you forgetting about the contribution made to water supplies by the massive amount of snow-melt, which occurs every spring & summer in the Himalaya’s & other ranges of the Indian sub-continent & Central Asia, not forgetting the Rocky’s & the many other ranges making up the mountainous spine of North America?

Maybe snow can be ignored in the interests of a scary argument, but wouldn’t all the glaciers rapidly melt if it stopped falling in such quantities?

RHS
Reply to  griff
June 6, 2019 7:04 pm

Growing glaciers are even worse for downstream water users.

Mark Broderick
Reply to  griff
June 6, 2019 8:11 pm

Little Griffy, if they stop melting…. THEY CAN’T CONTRIBUTE TO THE “DRINKING WATER”….D’OH !

JohnB
Reply to  griff
June 7, 2019 12:03 am

Well Griff, they’ll just have to live with it. You see, contraction of the Alpine Glaciers is quite common. Archaeological evidence shows those glaciers have advanced and retreated 7 times in the last 2000 years in places.

In fact, if you know anything about the climate at all, you would be well aware that any business that depends on the climate not changing is doomed to failure in the long run as the one thing that can be depended on is that the climate will change.

tonyb
Editor
Reply to  griff
June 7, 2019 2:12 am

griff

if you want to see an accelerated rate then I suggest you read E Roy Laduries’ Times of feast times of Famine’ which chronicles -from records- the ebb and flow of glaciers. There were an awful lot less glaciers in the Roman era as we can see from the Silver mines and a lot less in the MWP. They increased again during the LIA and are as would be expected, are now melting again.

Mark Whitney
Reply to  griff
June 7, 2019 5:58 am

Not all that long ago glaciers in the Alps were not looked on so kindly. Advancing ice devoured forests, fields and entire villages, sometimes surging so rapidly a person could stand and watch the ice advance.
Then as now it was blamed on the sins of man, and with about as much proof in support.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
June 7, 2019 7:02 am

Would those be the same glaciers whose shrinkage recently uncovered a Roman era mine?

Bryan A
Reply to  MarkW
June 7, 2019 10:21 am

Not in Montana but similar elsewhere

Andrew Cooke
Reply to  griff
June 7, 2019 7:05 am

Oh brother. I can always tell religious dogma when I see it.

Griff, seriously. Have you ever stepped back to look at this objectively without the religious overtones?

Matthew Drobnick
Reply to  Andrew Cooke
June 7, 2019 9:49 pm

No, he has not and cannot.

They are hopeless fanatics. Best to be monitored, but largely ignored

Bryan A
Reply to  griff
June 7, 2019 10:19 am

For a Glacier to become Drinking Water, one thing needs to happen,
It has to change phase from solid to liquid, AKA melt.
It can also be replaced with resorviors that don’t require freeze/melt cycles to be usable.
Glacier National Park could become Dam National Park with some expense and effort.
Water storage is still water storage

Letsgoviking
Reply to  Bryan A
June 7, 2019 1:22 pm

Bryan,
see Hungry Horse Dam

Cheers,
Dan

Bryan A
Reply to  Letsgoviking
June 7, 2019 2:34 pm

A damn fine dam if ever there was one.
Holds up to 2,400,000 m3 of water for a thirsty Montana
The Dam adds to hydroelectric power generation not only at the Hungry Horse Dam itself, but by storing and releasing water for use by downstream hydroelectric dams on the Flathead, Clark Fork, Pend Oreille, and Columbia rivers. a total of about a 5.6 billion kilowatt-hours are generated annually at Hungry Horse Dam, and the subsequent series of downstream hydroelectric powerplants.
We definitely need many more of these throughout the country.

F1nn
Reply to  griff
June 7, 2019 10:47 am

Griff

Snow is also water. It´s like soft ice. Snow is the reason of their ski/tourist industry. And it melts every spring and fills those drinking water rivers.
You have now very rare positive problem in your head. Enjoy it, it´s all your own.

Bob boder
Reply to  griff
June 7, 2019 10:55 am

How did Griff the serial slanderer get back on WUWT? I thought Anthony final booted him.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Bob boder
June 7, 2019 11:55 am

Every village needs its idiot.

F1nn
Reply to  Graemethecat
June 7, 2019 12:48 pm

+ 42 !

Katie Chamberlain
Reply to  Mark Broderick
June 6, 2019 2:54 pm

Because of the global warming and climate change scams. That’s why.

Reply to  Mark Broderick
June 6, 2019 6:24 pm

+1

beng135
Reply to  Mark Broderick
June 7, 2019 7:56 am

Mark says:
Why does anyone care about frozen water on the top of inhospitable, uninhabitable mountains, slowly turning back into water?

Good question — I’ve always wondered the same thing. Some people must have no actual problems to think this is of any concern.

F1nn
Reply to  beng135
June 7, 2019 11:33 am

Some people are afraid of change. Climate alarmists love photos, because they are still pictures. Like frozen memories from the past.

Jack Dale
Reply to  Mark Broderick
June 7, 2019 2:51 pm

The source of my drinking water is a glacier in the Canadian Rockies. Yes, I care.

beng135
Reply to  Jack Dale
June 8, 2019 6:38 am

Hope that it doesn’t stop melting, then.

Jack Dale
Reply to  beng135
June 8, 2019 4:25 pm

It is melting much faster than it is being replenished.

ironargonaut
Reply to  Jack Dale
June 10, 2019 10:11 pm

And if it freezes faster then it melts the results are the same less water downstream. The creeks near me flow all year and the snow is gone usually by May if there is any to begin with, so why do you think your water will stop flowing?

Kenji
June 6, 2019 10:22 am

The mere fact that no significant news stories have been broadcast to report on the GROWING glaciers of GNP … is … FAKE NEWS. It is FAKE NEWS by omission of the truth. Omission of the facts.

Loydo
Reply to  Kenji
June 7, 2019 6:54 am

But because some random dude caleed Roger says “I believe its growing” thats good enough fact-checking for you?
You’re being lied to and I think you actually like it. Lol

MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
June 7, 2019 7:03 am

If it’s good enough for Loydo, why shouldn’t it be good enough for everyone?

F1nn
Reply to  MarkW
June 7, 2019 11:26 am

MarkW

I think you are right. After all he is a member in Alarmist Church.

It´s good enough for me, because I have always liked good stand up comedy. He´s like angry clown.

This latest is very good: “How I got worried iceschlossht”.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Loydo
June 7, 2019 7:50 am

Lies are what you’re here for, Loydo – it’s the core of your being.

Talk about LIKING it – you were the one who told us all you believed AOC was joking about her 12 year doomsday.

My guess is you probably lie to yourself first thing every day.

Citizen Smith
Reply to  Loydo
June 7, 2019 9:32 am

OK Loydo, I’ll recognize your comment.

Random Roger observed growth of the Grinnel and Gem glaciers during a 2017 hike compared to 2008 pictures at the visitor’s center . His point was that the park was not reporting this and that Nat Geo, NYT and so on, who so reliably report on shrinking glaciers, are now absent. Glaciers can both recede and grow but reporting seems to be one-way. There is no need to invent a lie here.

By the way, have you seen this somewhat obscure report about the famous Mendenhall Glacier near Juneau, AK? https://www.livescience.com/39819-ancient-forest-thaws.html It turns out that glacier is not very old.

ResourceGuy
June 6, 2019 10:33 am

Okay that leaves a few hundred other national parks and monuments with propaganda pseudoscience on public information signage. See Rocky Mountain National Park and Sunset Crater for other examples.

Speculation science has no place in national parks funded by the taxpayer.

ATheoK
Reply to  ResourceGuy
June 6, 2019 5:27 pm

Sunset crater?

Sunset Crater, the black volcano cinder cone!?
Sunset Crater ranks with Death Valley for places to avoid on sunny midsummer days.
I shudder to ask what propaganda they’ve posted.
I also wish they’d conduct guided lava tube visits.

rah
Reply to  ATheoK
June 6, 2019 7:40 pm

IMO the time to visit Sunset Crater is sunset. Pretty cool to see all the bats emerging from the lava tubes.

James Mund
Reply to  ResourceGuy
June 8, 2019 10:52 am

Woo buddy. SNIP

If you want to post this you’ll have to remove/rephrase the 3rd grade sexual innuendo and remove the multiple ad hominems. Normally I’d cut 1st posters a break and modify it but this post is too long for me to be able to do that without being accused of re-writing/changing it. Posters are required to be respectful of their fellow posters and the authors. If you have an issue with something the author said, quote it and explain why you disagree so the author has a fair chance to address it should they wish to. – MOD

markl
June 6, 2019 10:40 am

You can only hide the truth for so long. Especially when the evidence is there for everyonre to see.

Patrick
Reply to  markl
June 6, 2019 3:53 pm

O’Brien would disagree. In the meantime, be ready to hide all trace of thoughtcrime.

Robertvd
Reply to  markl
June 7, 2019 5:47 am

That’s why they use place difficult to reach for the general public like the poles or the deep ocean.

Tom Gelsthorpe
June 6, 2019 10:42 am

This can’t possibly be true. Glaciers don’t grow; they only shrink. If any glacier were caught growing, it would undermine the doomsday narrative, that all the ice will be gone soon, that every little cockroach, critter and climate critic will boil or fry faster than you can say, “Jack Robinson.”

Doomsday was inevitable when the Wisconsin ice sheet started melting 20,000 years ago. Now we have the Great Lakes, the boreal forest, oodles of freely flowing rivers, and tens of millions of romping rabbits, birds and humans where once there was only a frozen surface. How awful was that? When there was no blade of grass or shrub north of Kentucky, no trees north of Alabama — THOSE were the good old days! If only Big Al and AOC had been alive to prevent the Big Melt of 20,000 – 8,000 B.C.!

Why ice is a more life-giving ground cover than grass & trees, is a question that will have to wait for another time.

Mumbles McGurick
Reply to  Tom Gelsthorpe
June 6, 2019 12:55 pm

So our modern greenies don’t think BIG. Instead of “fighting climate change” they should be urging us to “fight the Holocene”.

Dibs on the T shirt.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Mumbles McGurick
June 6, 2019 2:23 pm

Mark Dice already sells T-shirts with “Liberalism – Find a Cure” and the ubiquitous ribbon motif underneath the words. I wear mine all the time, but then my social circles no longer intersect the nutter circles at today’s universities.

rah
Reply to  Tom Gelsthorpe
June 6, 2019 7:44 pm

The fastest growing glacier in the lower 48 is, or at least was, in the crater at Mt. St, Helens.

Hugs
Reply to  rah
June 6, 2019 11:55 pm

That stuff is mostly dome rock, not ice.

rah
Reply to  Hugs
June 7, 2019 5:25 am

No! The second lava dome formed in 2004-5 spitting the already formed glacier which had crevasses in evidence since 1998 there by confirming flow. Since the formation of the second lava dome the glacier has continued to grow with the two distinct branches combining in a single flow below the lava domes. The steep walls of the crater which cannot hold a lot of snow basically double the amount of snow the glacier receives above the ambient snowfall amount while shading a good portion of the glacier. In places the glacier ice is about 650 feet thick already. The crater glacier is not a typical glacier but there are many valley glaciers around the world that have been growing including all six glaciers on Mt. Shasta.

https://www.iceagenow.info/glacier-on-mount-st-helens-is-growing/

rah
Reply to  Hugs
June 7, 2019 9:23 am

Wrong! The first crevasses showed up in 1998 indicating a flow. The 2nd lava dome emerged in 2004-5 effectively splitting the already existing glacier. The current glacier ice is about 640 ft. deep in some places and the glacier now forms a single stream below the lava domes. The rate of growth and advance of the crater glacier was very fast because of the steep sides of the crater that can’t hold much snow and thus the snow that falls on them ends up down on the existing glacier there by about doubling the amount of snow the glacier receives over the amount that actually falls on it. That quick advance has now slowed as the glacier has emerged beyond the steep sides of the crater but still is advancing about 2 1/2″ per year.

Crater glacier is not typical of a valley glacier but many valley glaciers all over the world are also growing. including all the glaciers on Mt. Shasta in the US.

Roy W. Spencer
June 6, 2019 10:43 am

Well, I predict we all are going to die. And I will not retract that prediction.

David Brewer
Reply to  Roy W. Spencer
June 6, 2019 11:22 am

Oh no, we can’t die!!! That’s terrible!!

HotScot
Reply to  Roy W. Spencer
June 6, 2019 11:35 am

Roy W. Spencer

As someone pointed out elsewhere, if we had the technology we have now, back in the little ice age, would our alarmist friends be howling about the planet warming up?

Mike
Reply to  Roy W. Spencer
June 6, 2019 11:38 am

I told a man today that every day you live is a day less off your life, he wasn’t too happy so I said you could also look at it this way every day you live is a day extra onto your life.

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  Mike
June 6, 2019 12:46 pm

that’s not fully accurate. The longer you live, the more days you have left. If you’re a 77 year old geezer, you have a life expectancy of 10.00 years. If you don’t die while you’re 77, your life expectancy only drops to 9.43 years, not 9.00 years. That must apply on a daily basis, too. Roughly speaking, you get 0.43 day back at the end of every day you live.

Thomas Englert
Reply to  jorgekafkazar
June 6, 2019 4:26 pm

Your life expectancy will always be longer than your actual age.

Philo
Reply to  jorgekafkazar
June 6, 2019 5:22 pm

You’re life expectancy ends the day you die.

brians356
Reply to  jorgekafkazar
June 7, 2019 10:38 am

Yawn. I’m so glad I passed on that career as an actuary.

Bryan A
Reply to  jorgekafkazar
June 7, 2019 12:21 pm

10??? AOC said it was going to be 12

Scarface
Reply to  Roy W. Spencer
June 6, 2019 12:58 pm

In 12 years?

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Roy W. Spencer
June 6, 2019 1:34 pm

Roy,
Post that on your own blog, and someone will argue.

stinkerp
Reply to  Roy W. Spencer
June 6, 2019 1:49 pm

Benjamin Franklin also predicted that we will be taxed. Call me a believer.

Jimmy
Reply to  Roy W. Spencer
June 6, 2019 2:10 pm

You have no proof of that!!! 🙂

ATheoK
Reply to  Jimmy
June 6, 2019 5:41 pm

“But in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.
– Benjamin Franklin”

MarkW
Reply to  Roy W. Spencer
June 6, 2019 2:32 pm

I intend to petition for an exemption.

Bob boder
Reply to  MarkW
June 7, 2019 11:00 am

From Taxes?
You have a better chance with the death thing.

Philo
Reply to  Roy W. Spencer
June 6, 2019 5:19 pm

First you are born. Then life is a bi!tch. Then you die. Only one exception so far.

F.LEGHORN
Reply to  Philo
June 9, 2019 5:00 am

He DID die. But only for 3 days.

Craig from Oz
Reply to  Roy W. Spencer
June 6, 2019 7:56 pm

I am now of the demographic where marketers think it is wise to cold call me offering deals on life insurance and funeral cover.

Being a naturally horrible person I have been known to troll them on… well… every time they ring.

One of the calls went a bit like this

Me – Sorry. Don’t need it.
Phone – Are you…
Me – Oh yeah. I am not going to die so I don’t need funeral cover.
Phone – I am sorry, sir?
Me – Yeah. Did that whole thing with the black candles and the goat. A bit un-ethical but now I am going to live forever.
Phone – (awkward silence)

What can I say? I am a horrible person 😀

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Craig from Oz
June 7, 2019 4:48 am

love it and will remember that just in case I get one of those calls;-))) THANKS

Ethan Brand
Reply to  Craig from Oz
June 7, 2019 5:19 am

Craig from Oz
“Me – Sorry. Don’t need it.
Phone – Are you…
Me – Oh yeah. I am not going to die so I don’t need funeral cover.
Phone – I am sorry, sir?
Me – Yeah. Did that whole thing with the black candles and the goat. A bit un-ethical but now I am going to live forever.
Phone – (awkward silence)”

LOL!

Finally, an effective response to the AGW Extinction Believer!

LdB
Reply to  Roy W. Spencer
June 7, 2019 2:42 am

I don’t know Roy I have heard you are dead to some in the field on particular Mann for instance 🙂

That is how Climate Science goes it makes it’s own rules.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Roy W. Spencer
June 7, 2019 5:01 am

Hmmm … Do birth certificates in California require one of those warning labels they stick on everything?
“This birth is known to the State of California to result in death.”

Petit_Barde
Reply to  Roy W. Spencer
June 7, 2019 6:54 am

All the deaths are not equal :

– some will go to Hell, and 97% of climate oracles know who !

DayHay
Reply to  Roy W. Spencer
June 7, 2019 10:25 am

Exactly, and the Holocene is only ending ONE WAY.

ResourceGuy
June 6, 2019 10:45 am

Thank you for documenting the airbrushing policy moves of the park service. That needs to be saved as a teaching lesson for when the eco goon squads have left the schools, political parties, and peer review process.

Maybe it can be part of the science distortion museum on the mall in DC some day in a more civilized era of enlightenment.

Pat Frank
Reply to  ResourceGuy
June 6, 2019 11:45 am

RG, you came up with a great idea. The museum of distorted science.

We can start with social Darwinism, proceed through Margaret Sanger’s social eugenics movement, take a tour of Margaret Mead’s sexology and jaunt through Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, spend some good time at creationism and so-called intelligent design theory and end up at consensus climatology.

All of these represent science abused for political causes. They’re not like phrenology, or phlogiston, or even early astrology, all of which were legitimate products of their scientific times.

I’d also want to add a Hall of Modern pseudo-Sociology, too, with its critical theories and cultural studies. They are all corrosive abuses made to look like real scholarship.

Your museum would be a great learning tour for school kids, not to mention deluded adults.

Mike Graebner
Reply to  Pat Frank
June 7, 2019 7:39 am

FYI: “A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”
– Fred Hoyle

Mathew Schilling
Reply to  Pat Frank
June 7, 2019 7:45 am

I see, so you don’t believe creation was created? Everything just came from nothing for no reason whatsoever? Then some of that stuff that came from nowhere for no reason started, for no reason whatsoever, self organizing – blindly, stupidly, randomly and oh so slowly! until we had multiple nanotechnological wonders participating in a highly choreographed and exquisitely timed dances inside trillion cell organisms intelligent enough to realize everything came from nothing for no reason whatsoever?
Got it, thanks!

ResourceGuy
Reply to  Pat Frank
June 7, 2019 8:03 am

Of course it will need a whole building wing devoted to political manipulation using agenda advocacy science. The Al Gore Ozymandias statue of inflated science distortion needs to be especially moving in mockery and scorn. Children can play with the hockey stick display that can be tipped at one end to change the slope and result with ease.

Michael S. Kelly LS, BSA Ret.
Reply to  ResourceGuy
June 6, 2019 7:45 pm

The mall in DC is highly overrated. There isn’t even a Spencer’s Gift Shop there…

Joel Snider
June 6, 2019 10:46 am

Someone ought to rent a billboard to put the signs back up – just to remind everyone.

Cultural memory is frightfully short.

Mom2Kids
Reply to  Joel Snider
June 6, 2019 11:44 am

If the glaciers were supposed to be gone by 2020, then the climate in 2020 would be like the climate 7000 years ago. Right?

Because the diorama itself said those glaciers formed 7000 years ago.

RHS
Reply to  Joel Snider
June 6, 2019 12:02 pm

Short or convenient?

Joel Snider
Reply to  RHS
June 6, 2019 3:26 pm

There’s a convenience factor, for sure, but you would be amazed what people will forget.

Out of sight, out of mind.

Jean Parisot
June 6, 2019 10:50 am

What’s the measurement data that needs to be collected to go from ‘appears’ to be growing, to ‘are’ growing?

Chris4692
Reply to  Jean Parisot
June 7, 2019 8:58 am

LIDAR images over several years. Basically a precise topographic map.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  Jean Parisot
June 7, 2019 12:50 pm

Basically mole hill measurement science.

trafamadore
June 6, 2019 10:52 am

“Glaciers Appear to be Growing, not Melting in Recent Years”

This report, by the USGS in 2017, seems to be at odds with that statement.
https://www.usgs.gov/news/glaciers-rapidly-shrinking-and-disappearing-50-years-glacier-change-montana

And also with my own eyes having been to Glacier NP in 2015 and Rocky Mt NP last summer. While sad, it is interesting to venture below the glacier to look at the newly uncovered rock. The glaciers have retreated so quickly that they have left hardly any moraine.

Albert
Reply to  trafamadore
June 6, 2019 11:14 am

“hardly any moraine” only tells us that the glaciers weren’t in that position for very long.

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  trafamadore
June 6, 2019 11:39 am

trafamadore

While sad, it is interesting to venture below the glacier to look at the newly uncovered rock. The glaciers have retreated so quickly that they have left hardly any moraine.

No, moraines are left on the ground at the maximum point of the glacier expansion – typically in low meandering rock and spoils piles. Occasionally, as meandering lines of deposited rocks in the glacier’s axial direction if a drainage path from inside the glacier is undisturbed as it retreats.

As a glacier retreats, the rocks brought to the face of the glacier are NOT gathered or bulldozed up into recognizable piles or lines! They are dropped randomly wherever they appear on the face as it melts back or crashes off.

Now, items deposited BEFORE a glacier advances (such as the bodies of Andean sacrifices and the Iceman are found revealed to view AFTER a glacier retreats. That these bodies or items are found undisturbed at all means that they were deposited in holes or hollows in the bare rock BEFORE the glacier advanced again over top of them. Therefore, the question you cannot answer is: WHY did the glaciers advance and retreat BEFORE CO2 began increasing?

trafamadore
Reply to  RACookPE1978
June 6, 2019 12:49 pm

When a glacier retreats gradually, as they have for the last few centuries, they leave a continuous terminal moraine, the many end pts of the temporal high years. But when they retreat rapidly, as these days, you just see bare spots.

In the “old days” (’70s), we normally stepped off the terminal moraine onto the ice as we ascended onto a glacier; now you don’t do that any more.

Andrew’s Glacier in RMNP used to end in Andrew’s Tarn, which made it essential that you stop glissading down before you hit the ice water…now, no problem, the snout of the glacier is far from the lake.

Pillage Idiot
Reply to  trafamadore
June 6, 2019 1:22 pm

You can’t have a terminal moraine extending all of the way to the cirque of a retreating glacier.

Obviously, there is no supply of glacier-eroded rock above the point of the glacier’s origin.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  trafamadore
June 6, 2019 1:42 pm

a continuous terminal moraine

Terminal, no; ground, yes.

a continuous ground moraine

Psion
Reply to  trafamadore
June 6, 2019 1:55 pm

Trafamadore, aren’t you, in fact, describing a ‘recessional moraine’ and not a ‘terminal moraine’?

Paul Penrose
Reply to  trafamadore
June 6, 2019 3:29 pm

Just be glad those glaciers are not rapidly advancing! That *would* be catastrophic. Nothing is static in nature, so expecting things will stay the same your entire life is not reasonable. In fact, it’s a pretty ignorant attitude.

tty
Reply to  trafamadore
June 6, 2019 4:53 pm

Nonsense. A glacier leaves a terminal moraine when it is at a standstill, or advancing very slowly for a reasonably long period. The classic example is the Younger Dryas moraines in Scandinavia (Raerne, Mellansvenska Israndzonen, Salpausselkä). Many, but far from all, modern glaciers have a terminal moraine indicating their maximum extent during the Little Ice Age. A terminal moraine is formed by material melting out of the ice-front, or deposited by subglacial streams just in front of the ice. It is usually bulldozed or compacted to some extent by the ice. To see a terminal moraine forming I recommend visiting the southeast side of Vatnajökull on Iceland.

A retreating glacier normally leaves a thin layer of ground moraine, but there are other possibilities such as dead-ice moraine or Rogen moraine depending on how it melts. In rare cases it will form De Geer moraines, which are small annual end moraines. The exact conditions when this occurrs is uncertain, since it has not been observed to happen in the present, but it seems that it only occurs where there is a shallow lake or sea in front of the retreating ice.

If the ice was cold-based (=frozen to the ground) it may leave very little trace of its former existence beyond some erratic boulders.

R Shearer
Reply to  trafamadore
June 6, 2019 5:14 pm

I’m familiar with the glaciers south of RMNP and they are definitely growing in recent years. Based on pictures Arapahoe Glacier compared to today , it is bigger than it was in the mid 1950’s.

trafamadore
Reply to  trafamadore
June 6, 2019 5:19 pm

Well, as usual, you are all missing the point. There IS no moraine. The rock is bare.

tty
Reply to  trafamadore
June 7, 2019 1:39 am

That just indicates that there was little or no rocks in the ice. Not very unusual for small cirque glaciers. They are almost static and have little erosive capability. Most of the entrained rocks come from plucking at the headwall/bergschrund.

MarkW
Reply to  trafamadore
June 7, 2019 7:08 am

Which doesn’t prove that the glacier is retreating rapidly.

mkelly
Reply to  trafamadore
June 7, 2019 6:18 am

Trafamadore, is it your position that glaciers should never shrink?

Does not the elevation of the glacier have a significant impact on how fast glaciers shrink?

Pat Frank
Reply to  trafamadore
June 6, 2019 11:48 am

You find it “sad,” trafamadore, because you believe climate models.

They’re a predictive crock.

trafamadore
Reply to  Pat Frank
June 6, 2019 6:40 pm

Believe? That is for religious superstitions.

The science is clear: we should not be warming, based on models assuming historical CO2 levels. But we are. Because…?

Newminster
Reply to  trafamadore
June 7, 2019 3:05 am

Because models assuming historical CO2 levels or assuming that CO2 is a magic gas or incapable of making sense of clouds and created by “scientists” whose devotion to a pseudo-environmental “cause” far outweighs their understanding of climatology are not going to produce results that are of any value in real life.

I might as well claim that my, fairly extensive and faithfully created, model railway bears anything more than a vague passing resemblance to the real thing, and no sane person would pretend otherwise.

MarkW
Reply to  trafamadore
June 7, 2019 7:09 am

Assume, believe, you are the only one who sees a substantive difference there.

You choose to believe that the assumptions built into the models make them accurate.
Science says otherwise, but heck, belief trumps science when it comes to climate.

MarkW
Reply to  trafamadore
June 7, 2019 7:10 am

BTW, these same models also proclaim that the Medieval, Roman and Minoan warm periods never happened and that the Holocene Optimum is just a myth.

Andrew Cooke
Reply to  trafamadore
June 7, 2019 7:14 am

Excellent. I am glad you used the word science.

Since you know so much to come on here and educate us uneducated rubes, please define science. Also, please explain how your precious models must sure be accurate this time.

Michael 2
Reply to  trafamadore
June 7, 2019 9:53 am

trafamadore says: “we should not be warming”

For what it is worth, I am indeed not warming.

F1nn
Reply to  trafamadore
June 7, 2019 12:18 pm

trafamadore

Are you Loydos alter ego?

What science is clear? You know, models assuming is not science. So you are a believer of the global warming church. You are a joke.

Can you understand that we shoukd really be warming? Do you have any clue about history?

Hugh
Reply to  trafamadore
June 7, 2019 4:07 pm

“The science is clear: we should not be warming, based on models assuming historical CO2 levels. But we are. Because…?”

Clearly the point of this article – ‘Because’ the models are/were wrong and can’t be trusted. Similar to the models predicting glaciers would be gone by 2020 resulting in a surreptitious effort to remove the (formerly) posted embarrassing results of the incorrect models utilized in the National Parks.
A better question is how much those worthless dioramas, their install and subsequent clandestine removal cost taxpayers and will continue to do so long after their removal based on the impact of indoctrination? I would think any true environmentalist would consider those tax dollars better spent on recycling, fighting wildfires, etc. rather than spreading incorrect information.

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  trafamadore
June 6, 2019 12:49 pm

LOL!! Good one.

joe - the non climate scientist
Reply to  trafamadore
June 6, 2019 1:28 pm

“The glaciers have retreated so quickly that they have left hardly any moraine.”

The lack of any moraine is due to lack of growth of the glacier during those years, not rapid retreat

tty
Reply to  joe - the non climate scientist
June 6, 2019 4:58 pm

A retreating moraine will normally leave more moraine than an advancing one, particularly in the final stage of melting, and then as “dead-ice moraine”. Remember a retreating glacier doesn’t move backwards, it moves forward as all glaciers do, but it is melting faster than it is moving, so the glacier front retreats.

trafamadore
Reply to  tty
June 6, 2019 6:50 pm

No. Not usually.

tty
Reply to  trafamadore
June 7, 2019 1:42 am

Do you care to name a counterexample?

F1nn
Reply to  trafamadore
June 7, 2019 12:32 pm

Well, that´s settled then. Not.

F1nn
Reply to  trafamadore
June 7, 2019 12:46 pm

trafamadore

That. Is. Idiotic. Answer. Always.

F1nn
Reply to  tty
June 7, 2019 12:42 pm

tty

You are right. We have this Salpausselkä, and it has born like you wrote. The glacier front has been quite a while in that position and feed from the back to make that selkä. It takes time to make something so big with only water.

Vuk
June 6, 2019 10:53 am

The readers of this blog should individualy email or write to the park and the state’s authority for sign to be immediately restated to its original location, since it has become a part of the climate science heritage.

Ken
June 6, 2019 10:56 am

I was there in Sept 2011. After reading the signs on their many displays, I almost expected to see a funeral cortège rolling slowly down the Going to the Sun road with a horse-drawn hearse bearing a bucket of warm water.

mkelly
Reply to  Ken
June 7, 2019 8:26 am

I was there years ago.

They fail to mention that without glaciers melting there would be no Lake McDonald of which they are so proud.

David S
June 6, 2019 10:57 am

We stand by our prediction. The glacier is gone. What you are seeing is a figment of your imagination.
/sarc

ResourceGuy
Reply to  David S
June 6, 2019 11:17 am

The ultimate settled science.

DonM
Reply to  David S
June 6, 2019 3:34 pm

And, along with your statement on the plaque, a video replacement for the lights that go out … Monty Pythons dead parrot.

mark from the midwest
June 6, 2019 11:01 am

Back in 2013 I saw an article, with acknowledgements to the Park Service, with photos of Grinnell ” then” and “now.” The “now” photo showed a large pool of water within the glacier, with an implied statement that the glacier was “disappearing before our eyes.” The only problem is that anyone who has actually been on the glacier in the summer knows that water, from the melt on the upper part of the headwall, pools on the main part of the glacier, then runs downhill, to Grinnell Lake. Was it a clever trick, or just a useful idiot at work?

Bryan A
Reply to  mark from the midwest
June 6, 2019 12:13 pm

Clever Trick…
Useful Idiot fodder…
Either way the answer is YES so the next obvious question is, does it matter?

J Mac
June 6, 2019 11:04 am

Roger Roots,
Excellent expose’ of institutional climate change fraud (and ‘walking it back’ surreptitiously!) at Glacier National Park! Thanks!

Steve O
June 6, 2019 11:06 am

They should explain why this isn’t lauded as GREAT news! If we aren’t facing an impending catastrophe they should be happy — whatever the reason. But no.

Perhaps in the “gone by 2020” they were actually referring to the diorama.

Len Werner
June 6, 2019 11:17 am

I did a calculation not long ago of ice in western Canada; it was stimulated by this study:

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00513.1

It reports about 2500 cu. km. as the present ice volume–600 cu. miles for American readers. It is easy to obtain an estimate of there being a million cubic miles of ice here 12,000 years ago, about the time that the melt of the Fraser glaciation began–1000 miles by 1,000 miles by 1 mile (the thickness is assumed from the calculations by W. H. Mathews on the tuyas in northern BC).

So–600 cubic miles is what percent of 1 million?–0.06%. Let’s make a guess that before the industrial age began, there was say 4 times as much, or about 0.2%.

If 99.8% of the ice that was here in western Canada just 12,000 years ago melted before man industrialized, just why would I be setting my hair on fire watching the last 0.2% melt? And whatever could have made me believe that the last 0.2% was perpetual?

I agree that one could quibble with a few of the assumptions I made, but the order of magnitude should not change too much. I think will keep my hair even if some disagree with my accuracy.

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  Len Werner
June 6, 2019 11:45 am

Lem Werner

It reports about 2500 cu. km. as the present ice volume–600 cu. miles for American readers.

So, what is the assumed “area” of today’s northern hemisphere land ice (outside of Greenland)?
What is the assumed area of today’s shelf (fixed) ice in the northern hemisphere?

Yes, melting or freezing northern sea ice will not affect sea levels, but are claimed to affect global albedo. Melting (or freezing) land ice and shelf ice (ice solid down to the glacier’s final grounding point, almost always forced much higher than the icebergs 90% underwater – 10% visible over water), will increase or decrease both sea water rise and albedo. But pumping water from aquifers also increases sea level rise.

Len Werner
Reply to  RACookPE1978
June 6, 2019 1:11 pm

“So, what is the assumed “area” of today’s northern hemisphere land ice (outside of Greenland)?”

“What is the assumed area of today’s shelf (fixed) ice in the northern hemisphere?”

The area used was in the report–

“Taking the glaciated area as 26 590 km2 gives the average glacier thickness as 87.2 m.”

The area used was measured, not assumed. Also, the report was not about sea ice, so I’m puzzled by your question; it described only glaciers in western Canada. It had nothing to do with icebergs, or aquifers (does pumping from aquifers increase sea level if it doesn’t reach the sea, but is used for irrigation and evaporates or goes into plant tissue?) It would be interesting to obtain a figure for the volume of water pumped from aquifers, but relative to ocean volume I’m betting on ‘insignificant’.

Here’s a number–

“Estimated groundwater depletion in the United States during 1900–2008 totals approximately 1,000 cubic kilometers (km3).” https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2013/5079/

A reasonable volume of the planet’s oceans is 3.5E9 cu. km. 1E3/3.5E9 = 0.00003%. In 108 years. And I’m betting that only a tiny fraction of that 1000 ever reached an ocean.

MFKBoulder
Reply to  Len Werner
June 7, 2019 8:50 am

Why only a tiny fraction?!?
When the water was taken from the aquifers it will be added to the current hydrologic cycle and thus will be in the current reservoirs (one is the ocean). Smart irrigation would prevent the filling of aquifers which have been filled during the glaciation periods.
BR
Michael

Len Werner
Reply to  MFKBoulder
June 10, 2019 7:38 pm

Hmm, an interesting comment Michael. I guess we could consider how that water got to the aquifer in the first place; it was dropped on the land and soaked into the soil and strata below. Much of the water removed from aquifers is used for irrigation so is dumped back on the land (minus that lost to evaporation). Of that lost to evaporation, it will fall on land again somewhere as precipitation. I opine that it will fall on land as the majority of the water (in the US) is removed from the Ogallala Aquifer, and there is plenty of land left along normal northern hemispheric circulation patterns for it to fall on other states. It will go into someone else’s aquifer–but it still will end up in one and not in an ocean.

Besides–the volume is still so insignificant as to be the climate-butterfly-equivalent of Christopher Columbus tossing the contents of his chamber-pot over the back of the Santa Maria. I don’t think that either you nor I would pack up and move farther inland even if a BIG fraction of 0.00003% in 108 years ended up in an ocean.

MFKBoulder
Reply to  MFKBoulder
June 12, 2019 12:38 am

” I opine that it will fall on land as the majority of the water (in the US) is removed from the Ogallala Aquifer, and there is plenty of land left along normal northern hemispheric circulation patterns for it to fall on other states. It will go into someone else’s aquifer–but it still will end up in one and not in an ocean.”

The aquifers are delpeted at rates of 1 to 2 ft a year, recahrge is in the magnitude of 1-2 inches. This makes me to doubt in your hydological model. Then you state: “It will go into someone else’s aquifer–but it still will end up in one and not in an ocean.” Did you ever look at the discharge of the Mississipi?

BR
Michael

Len Werner
Reply to  MFKBoulder
June 12, 2019 11:18 am

I can’t seem to reply below your response, Michael, so I’ll insert it here. Have I seen the Mississippi?–only in it’s northwesterly beginnings. But I can look at it here–

https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2005/3020/

I certainly see a precipitation signal in the annual flow pattern, but not a groundwater one. But does it matter?–my original statement was one of significance, and I have to stick by it. The Ogallala is one of the world’s largest fresh-water aquifers, and its total storage right now is estimated at 133 million acre-feet.

“Based on saturated thickness mapping and groundwater production reporting in 2006, the District estimates the usable quantity of groundwater within the District was in excess of 133 million acre-feet in 2006.” http://northplainsgcd.org/about-us/ogallala-aquifer/

That is 164 cubic km. So, empty it ALL into the oceans in the next 10 minutes, every bit of it–what is the change in ocean level over 360 million square km of ocean? I calculate it at just under 0.5 mm. We’re right back to the effect of annual groundwater use being similar to emptying the chamber-pot off the Santa Maria poop-deck.

This forces me to conclude that groundwater use can never be a insignificant contributor to sea level rise. Where are my calculation errors?–I’m certainly prepared to accept them.

If I understand you correctly you are suggesting that the majority of irrigation water in particular, and extracted groundwater in general, is running off to oceans because the withdrawal rate exceeds the recharge rate. But, water falling on surface does not instantly get down to the aquifer, that takes years. How much is in the ground on it’s way back down?–I don’t know. But I bet a fair bit is; that’s how it got there in the first place. While it is true that we are depleting groundwater reservoirs like the Ogallala, that does not seem to extend to making oceans rise significantly by doing so.

MFKBoulder
Reply to  MFKBoulder
June 13, 2019 6:32 am

Hi Len,

1st: there is a world outside Texas: the North Plains Groundwater Conservation deals with Texas water resources.
2nd there is a wolrd outside the USA: other depleted storages are: Lake Tchad, Aral Lake, Caspian sea and some more aqufiers in Africa, Australia and Asia.
All in all can be attributed to an amout of 5-10 percent of the observed Sea level rise in the last 100 years (approx 200-250 mm).
The question is, where is this amount: either in the soil or the sea (in the mid-term).
So it is marginal but shall not be ignored.

BR
Michael

John Robertson
June 6, 2019 11:18 am

This is the long , glibbering climb down of the mass hysterics.
Carefully erasing the evidence and when cornered they will throw their “scientific advisors” to the wolves.
Very soon you will hear politicians “explain” that they personally are ignorant of science,so they had to take the word of their “experts”

LdB
Reply to  John Robertson
June 6, 2019 6:40 pm

That process has already started in Australia, ones like “there is no future in coal” Tanya Plebasek banished from deputy leader.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  John Robertson
June 7, 2019 3:42 am

It’s rather like the old claims about many failed predicions…….”We based our estimates on the best avilable science at the time!” With “best avilable” being the operative expression here!

ResourceGuy
June 6, 2019 11:20 am

It is sad to be exposed to this type of agenda science while visiting our national parks.

Ken
Reply to  ResourceGuy
June 6, 2019 3:37 pm

++++++

Sad indeed. 99% have not been exposed to actual science, so they are naive and willing victims.

What really irritates me is that our Founding Fathers believed their ace in the hole was the press. Little did they realize that the Press also follows the almighty $ into the sewers of power politics. Sickening.

SMS
June 6, 2019 11:20 am

Glaciers have been melting back for about 15,000 years, more or less. Thousands of glaciers have disappeared as we enjoy the benefits of our most recent interglacial period.

We won’t need to worry until glaciers start growing again; signifying the end of this, most recent, interglacial period. Until then, disappearing glaciers are a part of our interglacial history.

Rod Evans
June 6, 2019 11:21 am

Maybe they need a new Al Gore-ithm to help explain it all.
I was going to book one of those summer cruises through the north west passage but the travel agents told me they have been cancelled due to too much ice….

Editor
June 6, 2019 11:22 am

The glaciers at Glacier National Park probably formed after the Holocene Climatic Optimum and reached their maximum extent in the mid-1800’s toward the end of the Little Ice Age.

The history of glaciation within current Glacier National Park boundaries spans centuries of glacial growth and recession, carving the features we see today. Glaciers were present within current Glacier National Park boundaries as early as 7,000 years ago but may have survived an early Holocene warm period (Carrara, 1989), making them much older. These modest glaciers varied in size, tracking climatic changes, but did not grow to their Holocene maximum size until the end of the Little Ice Age (LIA) around A.D. 1850. While they may not have formed in their entirety during the LIA, their maximum perimeters can be documented through mapping of lateral and terminal moraines. (Key, 2002) The extent and mass of these glaciers, as well as glaciers around the globe, has clearly decreased during the 20th century in response to warmer temperatures.

Climate reconstructions representative of the Glacier National Park region extend back multiple centuries and show numerous long-duration drought and wet periods that influenced the mass balance of glaciers (Pederson et al. 2004). Of particular note was an 80-year period (~1770-1840) of cool, wet summers and above-average winter snowfall that led to a rapid growth of glaciers just prior to the end of the LIA. Thus, in the context of the entire Holocene, the size of glaciers at the end of the LIA was an anomaly of sorts. In fact, the large extent of ice coverage removed most of the evidence of earlier glacier positions by overriding terminal and lateral moraines.

https://www.usgs.gov/centers/norock/science/history-glaciers-glacier-national-park?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects

So… Even if they did vanish, it wouldn’t be “unprecedented.”

Duane
Reply to  David Middleton
June 6, 2019 12:37 pm

You mean, the climate alarmists are cherry picking the data by setting up timeframes that catch only one part of a repetitive cycle?

I cannot believe they would think of doing such a dishonest thing!!! Tsk tsk tsk!

And by the way, there weren’t a hellluva lot of SUVs and coal fired power plants back in 1850 anyway .. or in 1900 … or much before 1950.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  David Middleton
June 6, 2019 1:17 pm

Several years back, when I first got interested in this ‘debate,’ I did some searching on the internet (obviously post-1994). I found myself on the GNP website, where there was a statement about the retreat of the glaciers, remarking that two ice fields on the north side (where the sun doesn’t shine ) had, however, been stable for over 100 years. At that time I suspected that the problem was not an increase in air temperatures, but a decrease in cloudiness and consequent increase in insolation.

When I went back a few years later to refresh my memory on a few details, I found that the website had been changed and there was no longer a reference to stable ice fields! They had stuck their heads where the sun doesn’t shine.

Major Meteor
June 6, 2019 11:26 am

I am hoping someone can take pictures and document all the gloom and doom signs before the ministry of information changes them. I need to get to GNP not before the glaciers are gone, but before all the gloom and doom signs disappear.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Major Meteor
June 6, 2019 1:08 pm

What would make a great picture is if they toss the signs in their garbage dump. How fitting to record the disposal in a garbage heap!

Ann Banisher
Reply to  Major Meteor
June 6, 2019 3:27 pm

I will be there hiking GNP as I have every year since 1991.
I will ask why they took them down. (though we all know the answer)
Also, go to the going to the sun road page and they show the dates the road has been open since the
1930s. There were many years in the 30s-50s when they opened from late May to late Oct (even early Nov). Since 2000 it has been mostly mid June to early Oct. This year it will open June 22 at the earliest.

Hermit.Oldguy
June 6, 2019 11:42 am

“The small alpine glaciers present today started forming about 7,000 years ago …”
That seems highly unlikely, to me.

ResourceGuy
June 6, 2019 11:50 am

I think it’s time to start a comprehensive cataloging of agenda science on national park signage as a public service for future generations. This should not quietly fade away.

Gamecock
Reply to  ResourceGuy
June 6, 2019 1:58 pm

We have 25 years of National Geographic Magazine documenting climate hysteria. No other records needed.

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  Gamecock
June 6, 2019 5:34 pm

Gamecock,
I put some personal effort into publicizing what Nat Geo was up to, with thanks to Anthony.
You see, it is insufficient to merely write that you feel sad about the way things are. You actually have to DO something that has a chance of bringing change, like writing to NatGeo. What have you done?

Why not get a group together and update the NatGeo errors to reflect what is known now, in 2019, then spread it around?
Geoff
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/31/national-geographics-warming-warning-10-years-later/

Gamecock
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
June 7, 2019 5:51 am

“You actually have to DO something that has a chance of bringing change, like writing to NatGeo.”

You failed. They haven’t changed. You wasted your time and effort on a lost cause.

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  Gamecock
June 7, 2019 7:55 pm

Gamecock,
The effort did not fail if only some NatGeo staff looked at the material and wondered if there was validity to some of it. I do not know what happened. Rome was not built in a day.

Mohatdebos
June 6, 2019 11:55 am

Wasn’t there a report within the last few months that U.S. and European researchers were “shocked” by the fact that glaciers in Greenland were growing.

Tom higley
June 6, 2019 12:11 pm

Perhaps the signs should have been replaced with this one:

“This entire park will be covered by a glacier over a mile thick during the next ice age”

John Shade
June 6, 2019 12:24 pm

This really should be documented well in order to provide high school students with project materials on the disgraceful, pathetic collaboration of so many organisations with the CO2 scaremongerers. One day, such pupils will scarcely believe such culpability and passive compliance with infantile ‘reasoning’ was so widespread. But let us hope they will be aware that WUWT existed and tried to stop it.

Steve O
Reply to  John Shade
June 6, 2019 2:54 pm

In the future, schoolkids will be taught about the abysmal level of scientific inquiry endemic to our time period, and they’ll regard us in the same way we regard doctors who would bleed fevers to get out the bad blood — only much worse. They’ll learn how we spent trillions of dollars chasing nonsense that had been so clearly disproven and will wonder how so many could fall for such a delusion for so long.

I suppose every generation looks back at previous generations and their silliness regarding their science, but our time will be looked at with contempt.

BobM
June 6, 2019 12:25 pm

We visited Glacier two years ago and I read that junk and complained. Even if the glaciers weren’t increasing (or decreasing) noticeably, the tone of the information was all about us bad humans killing all the world’s glaciers. Unfortunately the people manning the counters said they had nothing to do with the information in the kiosks and dioramas, and it was the NPS we had to deal with. Good to see that someone finally got through to them.

Rudolf Huber
June 6, 2019 12:38 pm

Another one in the climate swindling bin. Why does nobody call those fraudsters out? Why is this not on national TV? How is it that climate alarmists can claim that glaciers disappear when the facts are diametrally opposed to that? Are we so degenerated that we can’t even call those liars out?

n.n
June 6, 2019 12:48 pm

Reuse, Reduce, Recycle. Haste makes waste. Those signs may be useful in ten, twenty, one hundred years, and at irregular intervals thereafter.

Timo, Not That One
Reply to  n.n
June 6, 2019 1:27 pm

Would be a great decoration for the man cave.

Adiedee
June 6, 2019 12:54 pm

In the last ice age, the human population was approximately 10,000. Thank the Lird for global warming!!!

Bruce M Gelman
Reply to  Adiedee
June 8, 2019 11:43 am

8 billion people.Nothing to thank anyone about.What a stank.

ROBERT L FULLER
June 6, 2019 12:59 pm

As a proxy for snowfall and temperatures you can plot the Going-to-the-Sun road opening and closing dates. Of course budgets, avalanches, WWII etc get in the way statistically, the trend is slightly later opening dates and earlier closing dates.

https://www.nps.gov/glac/learn/news/upload/Logan-Pass-Open-Close-Dates_Press-Kit-6-26-2017.pdf

pokerguy
June 6, 2019 1:09 pm

Has any prediction from the climate change crew come to pass? Even one?

xenomoly
Reply to  pokerguy
June 6, 2019 8:34 pm

Carbon dioxide has increased

Nick Werner
June 6, 2019 1:10 pm

Good heavens, these glaciers are so small that they could be saved by spray-painting the rocks along the moraines white each spring when the snow thaws.

Taphonomic
June 6, 2019 1:28 pm

I like to think about Pre-Clovis man sitting around their fires pontificating about the disappearance of the Laurentide Ice Sheet.

Citizen Smith
Reply to  Taphonomic
June 7, 2019 10:37 am

Little did they know the havoc caused by their co2 breathing fire! Unless of course their high priest, Algorquadork (who’s loin cloth was always 2 sizes too small) scattered some sacred marmot bones and saw a model of the future: Great herds of buffalo and living was easy.

Rick C PE
June 6, 2019 1:33 pm

Could have fixed the diorama for them with a Sharpie – just cross out the 20 in 2020 and replace with ‘??’.

Craig Moore
June 6, 2019 1:47 pm
Tom Stone
June 6, 2019 1:48 pm

Maybe the Park Service should be putting up new signs stating that the “Gone by 2020” signs were gone by 2020.

hugs
Reply to  Tom Stone
June 7, 2019 12:04 am

This is meme material. A photo of the sign with text “gone by 2020” “- the sign”

Hugs
Reply to  Tom Stone
June 7, 2019 12:22 am

From idea to meme:

comment image

Len Werner
June 6, 2019 1:55 pm

Here’s another calculation I did that should save some hair-burning. From an article about the Fraser Glaciation in BC–

“The glacial maximum occurred between 14,000-16,000 years ago marking the glacial movement of the maximum phase (Stumpf, 2000). Between 13,000-9,000 years ago, the late glacial phase occurred, and glaciers retreated back to early glacial positions prior to the glacial maximum”

https://watershed.ucdavis.edu/education/classes/files/content/flogs/BSSlotnick.pdf

These glaciers at Fraser maximum filled BC’s fjords out to the outer coast; these fjords are over 200 miles long–and the glaciers in them retreated back in 4,000 years.

200 miles is 1,056,000 feet. Melting back that length in 4,000 years is a glacial retreat of 264 feet per year. Will someone show me a glacier in North America retreating at that rate today?

So can rapid glacial retreat occur naturally, without man?–the answer is obvious. Why then are we in a panic about modern melt-back??

Anything happening at Glacier National Park today is insignificant within the bounds of natural processes, and park officials (‘naturalists’?) really should know that. That leaves us to conjecture about the (now being removed) panic-inciting signs that Dr. Roots describes.

tty
Reply to  Len Werner
June 6, 2019 4:23 pm

“The glacial maximum occurred between 14,000-16,000 years ago marking the glacial movement of the maximum phase”

No way, that would mean that the glaciation in BC was more than 5,000 years later than anywhere else, and climaxed just as melting was at a maximum everywhere else.

Len Werner
Reply to  tty
June 6, 2019 8:06 pm

Please read the references, tty; this timeline is fairly well established. I did not make it up.

In addition, I have worked as a geologist extensively in glaciated terrain in western Canada, including the St. Elias mountains, the Juneau Icefields, and even doing geothermal research on the well-glaciated Mt Meager complex; in many places we are still in the Fraser Glaciation; it has not yet ended. I developed a rural property on which I live in the central Fraser Valley in SW BC; I was able to develop a shallow well when finding a spring emanating from a sliver of lateral moraine under about 6′ of glacial-marine clay, when excavating for my shop, that now produces all my water needs. My knowledge of glaciation is what caused me to recognize my water source when I uncovered it.

Honestly, this all did not occur all that long ago. And publications attesting to it can be found in the simplest of places–

“Approximately 13,000 years ago, the Late Glacial Maximum began. The end of the Younger Dryas about 11,700 years ago marked the beginning of the Holocene geological epoch, which includes the Holocene glacial retreat. ”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Period#Pinedale_or_Fraser_glaciation,_in_the_Rocky_Mountains,_USA

tty
Reply to  Len Werner
June 7, 2019 2:12 am

Ah, that explains it. The actual dates are lifted unchanged from:

Blaise, B., Clague, J. J., & Mathewes, R. W. (1990). Time of Maximum Late Wisconsin Glaciation, West Coast of Canada. Quaternary Research, 34(03), 282–295. doi:10.1016/0033-5894(90)90041-i

Quite a good paper by the way.

However they are old uncalibrated C14 dates. So 14,000-16,000 rcybp is actually 17,000-19,300 calendar years and 13,000-9,000 rcybp is actually 15,600-10,200 calendar year.

Still slightly later than in Europe, but it is known that the much larger north american ice sheet reacted more slowly than the northern european one, and took longer to melt.

Reply to  Len Werner
June 7, 2019 7:48 am

In Lillooet on the eastern side of the Fraser valley, there are talus slopes that still have glacial ice underneath them. They are used by some of the residents, who have tunneled into them for cold storage.

tty
Reply to  Bill McCarter
June 8, 2019 9:30 am

Rock glaciers. But they are more likely relicts of the LIA than of the Wisconsinan.

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  Len Werner
June 7, 2019 2:48 am

Lord Monckton proposes police involvement in a similar matter elsewhere on WUWT just now. Interesting. The inclination of people to take nil, weak or strong legalistic action over what is prima facie fraudulent conduct by public officials is variable. If the offending body was hitherto well liked, the motivation is weaker.
There should be no such pre-judgement. Fraud is fraud, no matter who does it. This park display is fraudulent. It cannot, should not be pardoned by a reluctance to prosecute. Indeed, some of the cases from the past few decades might show that the nicest guys are the worst offenders.
In the 1980s I managed a court case for my employer, where the defendant was the Federal Environment Minister and the vehicle was world heritage listing, so I am commenting from experience. Rare experience, I imagine. I am pleading for vastly more action because the economic detriment alone is huge, but seldom calculated because that might be “impolite”.
Geoff

Gamecock
June 6, 2019 2:04 pm

Do we know they melt, and not sublimate?

Len Werner
Reply to  Gamecock
June 6, 2019 3:11 pm

I would say that we most definitely do; the melt-water channels and their sediments remain.

icisil
June 6, 2019 2:20 pm

File this under The Incredible Shrinking Climate Emergency.

And this one: DNC Climate Debate Nazi says, “No climate debate for you!”

Today, my team received a call from the Democratic National Committee letting us know that they will not host a #ClimateDebate. Further, they explained that if we participated in anyone else’s climate debate, we will not be invited to future debates. This is deeply disappointing.

https://twitter.com/JayInslee/status/1136384081434824705

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  icisil
June 6, 2019 10:30 pm

Poor wittle Jay. No one wants to play his reindeer games.

Enginer01
June 6, 2019 2:22 pm

The agricultural wealth that accompanies global warming was responsible for periods of prosperity allowing building of the great European cathedrals (Medieval Optimum) and the Pyramids, (early Holocene warm periods. )
It should be obvious the glaciers grew a lot with the Younger Dryas, then melted, then, 7000 years ago started growing again, only to fall prey to Al Gore [/sarc]
I read recently that Malaysia is falling prey to droughts caused by climate change. Why hasn’t anyone noticed that palm oil plantations are similar to the farms causing loss of snow cover on the slopes of Mt Kilimanjaro? The dry air from the farms causes sublimation of the snow and ice, in that case.

cerescokid
June 6, 2019 2:30 pm

Even in 1923 they were concerned about the shrinking glacier.

comment image

Jones
June 6, 2019 2:32 pm

Winston was busy during the Christmas break.

WXcycles
June 6, 2019 2:32 pm

Still making the “Gone by 2030” signs then?

Gunga Din
Reply to  WXcycles
June 7, 2019 5:28 am

Would making new signs to replace the “Gone by 2030” count as one of those promised “Green Jobs”?

WXcycles
June 6, 2019 2:39 pm

Just more evidence that CO2 has already developed a time-machine.

fxk
June 6, 2019 2:48 pm

So, it begs the question: Did the folks at Glacier via the National Park Service “see the light”, or was it a trickle down of one of Trump’s policies? Somehow, I don’t think it would have happened without some severe arm-twisting, truth aside.

Ann Banisher
Reply to  fxk
June 6, 2019 3:41 pm

I think they learned not to be specific. That way past failed predictions aren’t as obvious.
Nothing looks as silly as having a sign say the glaciers are gone when you are looking right at them.
Better to save that for people who can’t see what you are talking about.

tty
Reply to  fxk
June 6, 2019 4:28 pm

Just one year left to 2020….

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  fxk
June 6, 2019 10:31 pm

Raises the question, not begs.

Betsy Taylor
June 6, 2019 3:02 pm

I became a denier in 2006 after an Alaskan vacation. We were at a national park listening to a ranger taking about the glacier we were viewing. He mentioned that the glacier was growing and would likely create an ice dam which would create a lake where a village of 700 lived. I was shocked and When I questioned him, he explained that growing glaciers didn’t fit the narrative so got no press. I went home and did some research, and then found this blog. The rest is history.

Let
Reply to  Betsy Taylor
June 7, 2019 1:07 pm

Betsy,
just for the sake of interest in Ice Dams, look up Lake Missoula. It was created by a series of ice dams in the last ice age and rearranged the landscape of Eastern Washington and Northern Idaho.

I think we would have had waterfront property here is Kalispell!

Gordon Dressler
June 6, 2019 3:37 pm

Ooooooops . . . as the saying goes, reality is a b-i-t-*-h.

But wait, I’m sure there is a government grant somewhere to find out why this is occurring despite infallible, mankind-originated CO2 global warming.

Nik
June 6, 2019 3:44 pm

The person who authorized the expenditure to design, make, and install that display should be made to pay for it out of his/her own pocket as a fraudulent use of taxpayer money, then sent off to prison. Wanna bet it cost over $1M (and someone related to the same person got the job?)

Editor
June 6, 2019 3:47 pm

Regular Readers: Please Help ==> Somewhere here at WUWT recently there was a graph of percentages of mortality due to heat and cold. Can anyone give me a link to the post it appeared in? Thanks, Kip

Reply to  Kip Hansen
June 6, 2019 4:09 pm

Stand down. I helped him.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Charles Rotter
June 6, 2019 6:09 pm

Kip,

I found this today: https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/Which-Kills-More-People-Extreme-Heat-or-Extreme-Cold

Hopefully, it might be of use to you.

LdB
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 7, 2019 6:47 am

So depending how you rig the statistics you can get either in front and as we have no way in a toxic political field to agree on how it should be treated .. let the games resume.

Mark Broderick
Reply to  Kip Hansen
June 6, 2019 4:56 pm

comment image

Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  Kip Hansen
June 6, 2019 5:10 pm

Jan 6 2010 WUWT post ?

steve case
June 6, 2019 4:02 pm

This display was up at the Smithsonian until recently – maybe it’s still there (-:

comment image

Warren
June 6, 2019 4:03 pm

New gone by 2050 signs/messages will be phased-in over the coming months.

Jonathan Griggs
June 6, 2019 4:08 pm

When I visited the GNP last summer I noted these signs and lamented, loudly so those around us could hear, to my wife that our government should not be in the business of indoctrinating people like this. There were others who I could overhear talking to their children about how I was a dreaded “science denier”, and not to listen to me. All I could do was laugh at the ridiculousness of it. Now, come to find out the glaciers have been growing for almost a decade, unfortunately most of the population will never hear that information and remain ignorant until it becomes undeniable in another decade or two.

The pictures were also highly suspect in my book, just as the ones in the Olympic NP are at Hurricane Ridge. Melting glaciers are par for the course, not some unusual catastrophe to be avoided at all costs to our economy and culture.

Rhys Read
Reply to  Jonathan Griggs
June 8, 2019 4:31 am

I was at the Garfield park conservatory in Chicago. In the kids tutorial they had a sign that plants use water and air to grow. They couldn’t mention that it’s carbon dioxide and not air in general. Might give CO2 a good name after all.

Snarling Dolphin
June 6, 2019 5:00 pm

I’ve been to GNP twice in the last two years. If you can go there and do anything other than marvel at the health and resiliency and magnificence of that environment you are sick in the head. To sight see while fretting over the imagined future of the park is truly going out of your way to diminish the whole experience. But, different strokes.

Tez
June 6, 2019 5:01 pm

97% of all scientists were wrong.

LdB
Reply to  Tez
June 6, 2019 6:49 pm

It can be higher than that, it was about 99% in Einsteins time. On all published polls you won’t find a number higher than 20% of scientist that accept QM because you have to include all the soft sciences. I think acceptance of General Relativity has increased lately because of the gravity wave detectors but it languished at around 42% for years.

That is why science is not a popularity contest because it is not unusual for the majority to be wrong.

Hugs
Reply to  Tez
June 7, 2019 5:15 am

I bet the scientist behind this will soon never have been existed and the author has always been an uneducated summer employee or something.

Pity that the pictures are disabled.comment image

I thought it was good.

steve case
June 6, 2019 5:01 pm

This was on display in the Smithsonian until recently – maybe it’s still there (-:

comment image

joel
June 6, 2019 5:06 pm

Before we declare victory in the war for climate truth, is it possible that this change in signage is just due to different bureaucrats in D.C. ?

MarkW
June 6, 2019 5:07 pm

Glacier National Park Quietly Removes Its ‘Gone by 2020’ Signs

Once again liberals attempt to re-write history.

June 6, 2019 6:13 pm

dont get your science from park signs, or old newspaper clippings, or youtube videos.

I know its hard, but read the actual science.

cerescokid
Reply to  steven mosher
June 6, 2019 8:19 pm

There is no science. When you try to touch it, poof, it evaporates.

steve case
Reply to  steven mosher
June 7, 2019 2:38 am

steven mosher June 6, 2019 at 6:13 pm
…read the actual science.

Analyse the actual data. (if you can find it)

LdB
Reply to  steve case
June 7, 2019 6:28 am

If you were tortured that much would you hang around to be found.

steve case
Reply to  LdB
June 7, 2019 9:05 am

LdB June 7, 2019 at 6:28 am

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

First chuckle of the day (-:

Graemethecat
Reply to  steven mosher
June 7, 2019 3:47 am

Science from park signs, old newspaper clippings and youtube videos is far more honest than the sort of Climate “Science” you espouse.

Reply to  steven mosher
June 7, 2019 4:20 am

“dont get your science from park signs, or old newspaper clippings, or youtube videos”

or drive by commenters

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  steven mosher
June 7, 2019 6:19 am

As usual, Mosher misses the point. The vast majority people will never “read the actual science”. They’ll just get bombarded by this nonsense over and over again, and will come to see it as truth. I’m surprised you don’t see how that works.

Anna Keppa
June 6, 2019 6:24 pm

On an Alaskan cruise back in 2013, I went up Glacier Bay.. A nice Park Ranger lady on our ship explained how the original British explorers in the late 1700’s couldn’t go up the bay because it was blocked by …glaciers.

But today? We can go all the way up. Why ? Because the glaciers have retreated, and (in her words) a “healthy glacier” would not do that.

I challenged her, pointing out that IF the glaciers had not retreated, she would not have a job in Alaska—because it would have been utterly frozen all year round. AND that the glaciers there had been retreating long before anyone could attribute their retreat to ACG. IOW it has nothing to do with their “health”.

She had no comment…and probably no understanding, either—when I tried to explain the Pathetic Fallacy to her.

June 6, 2019 6:25 pm

more interesting than park signs

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1258-4

June 6, 2019 6:48 pm

start here

http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/glacier-recession/mapping-worlds-glaciers/

“Number of glaciers
From the RGI, we can learn that there are 198,000 glaciers in the World. However, this is a slightly arbitrary quantity, as it depends on the quality of the digital elevation model used, mapping resolution, and the minimum-area threshold used. Most analysts use a minimum area threshold of 0.1 km2; they will not map anything smaller than this due to difficulties in distinguishing between glaciers and snowpacks. If these small glacierets are including, the number of glaciers in the World could be up to 400,000, but they would still only account for 1.4% of the World’s glacierised area.

Together, these glaciers cover 726,000 km2. The region with the most ice is the Antarctic and Subantarctic, with 132,900 km2, closely followed by Arctic Canada North (104,900 km2). At the other end of the scale, New Zealand has only 1160 km2 of ice. In total, 44% of the World’s glacierised area is in the Arctic regions, and 18% is in the Antarctic and Subantarctic. Glaciers cover 0.5% of the Earth’s land surface13.”

want to track glaciers over time?

http://www.glims.org/

view them?

http://www.glims.org/maps/glims

You will have a tough time finding the glaciers mentioned in the post because they are the tiniest cherries

Reply to  steven mosher
June 6, 2019 8:28 pm

Of the glaciers that “they” are monitoring, How many are the big tidewater glaciers?

Hubbard glacier, the largest Northern Hemisphere tidewater glacier outside of Greenland….Advancing. https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-001-03/

Taku Glacier… the largest glacier of the Juneau ice field. A tidewater glacier which is advancing/growing – the largest glacier in the Juneau Ice field. Recognized as the deepest and thickest alpine temperate glacier known in the world, the Taku Glacier is measured at 4,845 feet (1,477 m) thick.[1] It is about 58 kilometres (36 mi) long, and is largely within the Tongass National Forest. BTW – it’s advancing.

Same thing with the largest tidewater glacier in the Southern Hemisphere outside of Antarctica… is advancing – Perito Moreno Glacier The 250 km2 (97 sq mi) ice formation, 30 km (19 mi) in length, is one of 48 glaciers fed by the Southern Patagonian Ice Field located in the Andes system shared with Chile. This ice field is the world’s third largest reserve of fresh water.

Are these glaciers of the ones being monitored, cherry picked?? Probably not …

tty
Reply to  steven mosher
June 7, 2019 4:48 am

It should be clear that these statistics don’t include the Greenland and Antarctic icecaps.

However, and somewhat confusingly, they do include other glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica, even if they are more or less contiguous with the ice-caps, but are glaciologically independent. It was this that caused the Time Atlas debacle some years ago when they got hold of a map of the main Greenland icecap without these smaller glaciers and trumpeted that huge areas had become ice-free:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/17/complaints-over-false-info-in-new-times-world-atlas-grow/

Hoyt Clagwell
Reply to  steven mosher
June 7, 2019 10:47 am

Steven, your references stopped short of declaring what the ‘correct’ area of glacier coverage is for the Earth. Is 0.5% of the Earth’s land surface more than the correct area or less? Perhaps you could tell us if we currently have too much glaciation going on or not enough, and why?

DonM
Reply to  steven mosher
June 7, 2019 3:19 pm

An incompetent, exaggerating, cherry picker such as this, offering to bet $5,000 against the consensus of scientific experts such as yourself, should be easy pick’ns.

Reply to  steven mosher
June 8, 2019 1:38 am

Another thing…. the latest opening of Going to the Sun Road over Logan Pass was July 13th, 2011…not that many years ago…
They now say it’s because of a reduced staff…lol…they didn’t say that at the time…I remember following it at the time. It was because of the increased winter snowfall that year.
That was not that many years ago…and the records go back to 1933 – 1934 – That’s 85 years or more.

rah
June 6, 2019 8:02 pm

I have wondered about the definition of a glacier.
When does a patch of snow/ice that lasts through the summer months become a glacier? When it flows?

And if that is so, then when does a patch of multiyear ice cease being a glacier? When it completely melts away one summer even though it has been retreating for years/decades/centuries and thus not really flowing?

tty
Reply to  rah
June 7, 2019 4:39 am

Correct, when it flows. That is the definition of a glacier. When a glacier stops flowing it becomes “dead ice”. Dead ice can last for centuries before melting, particularly if covered by sediments, but it is no longer a glacier.

And a patch of snow can also last for many years, but as long as it doesn’t flow, it is just a perennial snow patch.

LdB
Reply to  tty
June 7, 2019 6:34 am

Climate science or Nick hasn’t redefined them yet? There is low hanging fruit to get more melt water from when the science really needs it.

Reply to  rah
June 8, 2019 1:12 am

I was in Aspen CO in 1965 and 1966. I remember in the early fall in 1966 before the snow fell -, I walked up to the very top of the snow field in a late August afternoon… I could hear rocks falling by themselves from the highest Maroon peak as I sat there for a while to rest. I have an 8 mm video of me in street shoes sliding down the snow field… It didn’t take long to scramble up the 1-1500 feet to the top of the snowfield.
As far as I know there are no pics since then – 1966 where the ice field had disappeared…
It’s still there all summer.

Betapug
June 6, 2019 10:04 pm

At the Iris Griffith Centre on the Sunshine Coast, north of Vancouver, I photographed the Little Ice Age growth rings, clearly shown and labeled on a cedar log section from a tree that began life in 155 AD. https://photos.app.goo.gl/bXoyS2wfmz1eMT9P8

Paul
June 6, 2019 11:04 pm

Rhe Stuff news website in New Zealand is reporting that CO2 levels are now the highest in human history and the highest in millions of years. Any comments please?

steve case
Reply to  Paul
June 7, 2019 4:01 am

Paul … at 11:04 pm
…CO2 levels are now the highest in human history and the highest in millions of years. Any comments please?

Sure, “So What?”

Robertvd
Reply to  steve case
June 7, 2019 6:01 am

For most of humanity life has never been so good. Humanity only advanced when energy became cheaper and more abundant.

J Mac
Reply to  Paul
June 7, 2019 10:20 am

All of the plant life on Planet earth benefits from increased atmospheric CO2 levels. All of the Planet Earth animal life benefits from the increasingly abundant plant life. It’s a ‘Win-Win’ solution.

Reply to  Paul
June 8, 2019 4:06 am

You might want to look at this – CO2 is low capered to the past:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdmBaBS4zkU

JPP

Jack Dale
Reply to  Jon P Peterson
June 8, 2019 6:43 pm

The last time CO2 levels were this high was during the Pliocene Epoch 3-5 million years ago.

https://www.rmets.org/event/pliocene-last-time-earth-had-400-ppm-atmospheric-co2

tty
Reply to  Paul
June 8, 2019 9:41 am

Possibly, but proxy data have very low definition. If you change it to “CO2 levels are now the highest in human history, except perhaps for intervals up to a few centuries, and the highest in millions of years, except perhaps for intervals up to a few tens of millenia” I would agree.

If you look at stomata data, the only proxies that can give data for a single point in time, there are several studies that have yielded CO2 levels as high or higher than now. However they also only apply to a point in space, and while CO2 is often claimed to be well mixed in the atmosphere, it isn’t.

Hoser
June 6, 2019 11:41 pm

I too worried about the potential loss of glaciers in Glacier National Park. But I don’t any more, because I went there. When you visit, you realize the spectacle has little to do with the current crop of wimpy glaciers. The glaciers could all be gone and the name Glacier National Park would still be appropriate. That’s because the terrain – AMAZING vertical and expanses contained in rock walls thousands of feet high – was carved by raging full tilt glaciers of the last glacial prior to the current interglacial that started over 10,000 years ago.

Go see it. It’s way better than Yellowstone and even Yosemite.

Coach Springer
Reply to  Hoser
June 7, 2019 6:05 am

/Doing so this early September.

Hugs
June 7, 2019 12:02 am

Note that since September 2015 the author has offered to bet anyone $5,000 that GNP’s glaciers will still exist in 2030, in contradiction to the reported scientific consensus. To this day no one has taken me up on my offer. –R.R.

If it’s consensus that it melts by 2020.. no 2030, and you offer bet at 1:1, then there surely should be takers… /sarc

observa
June 7, 2019 2:54 am

Typical Gummint waste when they could have simply crossed out the 2 for a 3 with a texta. Will this extravagant waste of the planet’s resources ever cease?

Sara
June 7, 2019 4:03 am

Well, gee whiz, they should be happy, shouldn’t they?

I have a friend who lives in Montana, who has told me that the biggest concern with residents of her city is that the snow/ice cover will be insufficient to supply the city’s water needs.

You’d think this would make people happy. Now they have to change the signs? There is never any rest for the weary and silly, is there? Why don’t these park employee mopes just use their tabletop models to show the retreat line and the “new” advance line, instead of trying to hide their errors? That’s like making mistakes on your homework and then trying to hide them from the teacher.

David
June 7, 2019 5:13 am

Meanwhile, back here in the UK…

Near where I live in Sussex, is Bodiam Castle – managed by English Heritage. just outside the inevitable Tea Room is a little stream – and on an information board descriptions of the busy Roman era ironworks which used said little stream for transporting goods to the sea. The information board concludes with the warning to take full advantage of the footpath beside the stream, because in 50 years time ‘the area will all be under water due to sea level rise’….

If only I could come back in 50 years time….

Juice
June 7, 2019 6:07 am

Lysander Spooner University

He’s one of my heroes and I did not know that a university had been founded in his honor. Interesting.

ResourceGuy
June 7, 2019 6:10 am

The funny thing is I witnessed a creationist quizzing park employees about all the fossil displays at the Petrified Forest relative to the biblical great flood. Yet the Park Service engages in global warming religion of its own with these AGW educational (scare) signs in its parks that read like National Geographic editorial writing. I guess humans are just susceptible to telling tales in their own minds and spinning it to others.

We just don’t need to be doing it with taxpayer funded salaries, benefits, contractors, and NatGeo writers.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  ResourceGuy
June 7, 2019 6:25 am

Yes. Some folks just trade one fantasy for another, apparently unable to see reality.

Mark Pawelek