The shrinking Lyell Glacier/NPS photos.
Is it time to start a pool over when the Lyell Glacier in Yosemite National Park is no longer classified as a glacier? Or when it vanishes from the landscape? Those are good questions to ask, as the glacier, the second largest in the Sierra Nevada according to the National Park Service, is continuing to shrink.
The National Park Service's Climate Change Response team says the glacier "has thinned rapidly over just the last few years. Note (in the accompanying photo) the newly exposed bedrock on the east (left) side; it's estimated the glacier may now be only 15-20 feet thick. Currently the glacier is losing on average about three feet of thickness each year. How much longer until it's gone?"
It was back in February 2013 when word came that the Lyell Glacier had stagnated, or ceased its downhill movement, while the adjacent Maclure Glacier was still moving at its historical rate, about one inch per day.
Comments
Yes they have. And they haven't concluded that AGW is fact. But there are those like you that woud like to manfucture the belief they have. Even if you have to make false claims of perversion to do so.
Scientific Organizations That Hold the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action (http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/):
To follow up on Lee Dalton's suggestion above: The problem with the IGNORE button is you have to be logged in in order to screen comments out. Plus the links to reader comments on the first page even when logged in can be dominated by one string of back and forth, like this thread right now. When I see such an overwhelming thread my instinct is to avoid clicking through to the comments. It's easy to see how thoughtful discussion on the rich and diverse content on this Web site could be squelched. I still would like to see something on the front page that refers to a new reader's comment being posted on a story. But instead of listing each comment for the same story by user name, I'd prefer seeing a consolidated listing where perhaps just a running tally of how many comments have been made per story is listed. So instead of there being a list of 7 comments by different users under reader's comments all for this one article like right now, pushing off the front page any other comments on a different article, how about something like "30 comments posted on Requiem for a Glacier...." while still keeping the time element below the link. And if another reader posts a comment on another article it won't be drowned out by 30 separate listings for Requiem and it can have its turn at the top of the page 1 comments section. This is off the topic of the article I know. But there are other comments off topic here as well.
Gary you left these folks out:
As well as the answer to why global temperatures have been flat for the last 18 years depsite massive increases in global warming.
Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections
These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.
Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes
These scientists have said that the observed warming is more likely to be attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown
These scientists have said that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural.
Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences
These scientists have said that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for society or the environment.
Justin - How many scientific organizations aren't on that list?
And just as NASA's "97% of scientists" agree has been shown to be total BS, I suspect many of the "endorsements" of the listed organizations are as well. Perhaps you can show us where the esteemed Pakistan Academy of Sciences declared their position. It certainly isn't prominent on their website.
Observations on the above:
Nowhere in the original story was there any speculation about the cause of the shrinking glacier; the story merely asked how much longer the glacier might be around. Even so, the discussion quickly melted into another debate about whether or not climate change is "real." Here's what we can learn from most of the above comments:
(1) Those on either side of this argument can always trot out lists of scientists to support their position;
(2) Minds are already made up on this issue by a small group of regular posters on this topic;
(3) The rest of us are unlikely to be swayed by either of the above.
(4) The level of the discussion could be greatly improved by avoiding childish name-calling;
5) Those who actually stay on topic and contribute something new to this discussion are as refreshing as a gentle breeze over a snowfield on a warm summer day :-)
Jim,
Agree with you on 4 out of 5. I hope you are wrong on point 3.
And the amount of AGW deniers that deny global warming. A great group to be in, obviously! Especially if you're not smart enough to pass a basic collegiate level 101 science class.