Sciencescience

Fri Jun 7, 2019, 03:16 PM

National Park Quietly Removed Warning That Glaciers Will All Be Gone By 2020

https://dailycaller.com/2019/06/07/national-park-glacier-warnings/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Park Service (NPS) quietly removed a visitor center sign saying the glaciers at Glacier National Park would disappear by 2020 due to climate change.

As it turns out, higher-than-average snowfall in recent years upended computer model projections from the early 2000s that NPS based its claim glaciers “will all be gone by the year 2020,” federal officials said.

“Glacier retreat in Glacier National Park speeds up and slows down with fluctuations in the local climate,” the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), which monitors Glacier National Park, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

“Those signs were based on the observation prior to 2010 that glaciers were shrinking more quickly than a computer model predicted they would,” USGS said. “Subsequently, larger than average snowfall over several winters slowed down that retreat rate and the 2020 date used in the NPS display does not apply anymore.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cult of Global Warming FAILS again. Every climate change prediction always fails, isn't that odd?

27 replies, 675 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 27 replies Author Time Post
Reply National Park Quietly Removed Warning That Glaciers Will All Be Gone By 2020 (Original post)
Da Mannn Jun 7 OP
foia Jun 7 #1
Currentsitguy Jun 7 #2
DDKick Jun 7 #3
SatansSon666 Jun 7 #4
Social_Justice Jun 7 #6
SatansSon666 Jun 8 #7
oflguy Jun 8 #9
SatansSon666 Jun 8 #10
oflguy Jun 8 #11
SatansSon666 Jun 8 #12
oflguy Jun 8 #13
SatansSon666 Jun 8 #14
oflguy Jun 8 #18
Bob the Bilderberger Jun 7 #5
oflguy Jun 8 #8
SatansSon666 Jun 8 #15
oflguy Jun 8 #16
SatansSon666 Jun 8 #17
oflguy Jun 8 #19
SatansSon666 Jun 8 #20
oflguy Jun 8 #21
SatansSon666 Jun 8 #22
Da Mannn Jun 8 #23
SatansSon666 Jun 8 #24
Da Mannn Jun 8 #25
SatansSon666 Jun 8 #26
quad489 Jun 9 #27

Response to Da Mannn (Original post)

Fri Jun 7, 2019, 03:39 PM

1. They should've renamed it Barren National Park.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Da Mannn (Original post)

Fri Jun 7, 2019, 04:25 PM

2. Damn! You beat me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Da Mannn (Original post)

Fri Jun 7, 2019, 05:01 PM

3. It doesnt matter

According to Al Gore we are already dead anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Da Mannn (Original post)

Fri Jun 7, 2019, 05:30 PM

4. Find me a scientific paper that makes the claim that the glaciers would be gone in 2020.

The closest I can find is one that says they could retreat dramatically between 2030 and 2080 at Glacier National Park. Also that snowfall will increase around this time as well.

If you want to believe a diorama go right ahead.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #4)

Fri Jun 7, 2019, 11:11 PM

6. It is not climate that affects Glacier Nat. Park..it is local weather conditions

It is not hard to Google these things.I

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Social_Justice (Reply #6)

Sat Jun 8, 2019, 04:12 AM

7. tell the OP then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #4)

Sat Jun 8, 2019, 09:23 AM

9. I LOVE this!!!

You just can't admit you people can ever be wrong.

But go ahead, deny, deny, deny.

One of these fine days you are going to finally understand this issue has nothing to do with science.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #9)

Sat Jun 8, 2019, 09:25 AM

10. Some loon at a national park made a diorama that wasn't based off of the science.


Did you even read the article?

Lmfao..

Poor roflguy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #10)

Sat Jun 8, 2019, 09:27 AM

11. I see

So the loons at the park are loons.

You are learning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #11)

Sat Jun 8, 2019, 09:30 AM

12. They made the diorama based off their own observations

Not by what the science said was going to happen.

Try reading things sometimes. You won't look so thirsty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #12)

Sat Jun 8, 2019, 09:33 AM

13. Oh, I'm sure they had their reasons for making the signs

and printing the literature.

One of these days its going to hit you....IT AIN'T ABOUT SCIENCE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #13)

Sat Jun 8, 2019, 09:37 AM

14. You really need to read things before commenting.

The diorama wasn't commissioned by scientists. Someone used their own observations and decided that the models weren't correct and decided to change the outcome of the models projections.
The models are still on track though and even predicted the heavy snowfall attributed to the current state of the glaciers.

But you don't care about the science, just what some loon at a national park decided to do.

So lame.
Poor roflguy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #14)

Sat Jun 8, 2019, 09:53 AM

18. Well, at least now the National Park Service, National Geographic, New York Times, Washington Post

and everybody else knows to consult you before they think about making a move.

See? Problem solved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Da Mannn (Original post)

Fri Jun 7, 2019, 09:21 PM

5. I thought "local climate" was called "weather"

“Glacier retreat in Glacier National Park speeds up and slows down with fluctuations in the local climate,”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Da Mannn (Original post)

Sat Jun 8, 2019, 09:20 AM

8. Boy, you know the egg on their faces had to be thick and it pained them greatly to have to take the

signs down.

Poor widdle babies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #8)

Sat Jun 8, 2019, 09:39 AM

15. They had to take it down because they didn't listen to the science.

That's what happens when people think they know more about science than the people doing the science.

Like say, you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #15)

Sat Jun 8, 2019, 09:49 AM

16. You mean they should have consulted YOU before they put the signs up?

Along with National Geographic, the New York Times, Washington Post, and everybody else?

Personally, I think SUVs should have been banned when the glaciers started to melt at the end of the Little Ice Age.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #16)

Sat Jun 8, 2019, 09:51 AM

17. No they should have followed what the models projected.

Which is almost exactly what is happening.

Poor roflguy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #17)

Sat Jun 8, 2019, 09:55 AM

19. Have you volunteered yet to keep them all in line?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #19)

Sat Jun 8, 2019, 09:59 AM

20. Not my problem.

I just have to laugh when people think they got something on global climate change but it's a local thing.
Then they try to act all smart without actually reading anything about it.
Make fun of people that aren't scientists for making a mistake and thinking it puts a dent into climate theory.
it doesn't.
It only makes people laugh at you.
At how thirsty you are to try to get anything on me.
You can't. Because you don't study and read anything except loon blogs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #20)

Sat Jun 8, 2019, 10:02 AM

21. He He

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #21)

Sat Jun 8, 2019, 10:18 AM

22. it's funny because it's true.

Just look at this thread.
Look at all the other ones I spanked you in.
you can't get a fucking thing on me because I find the facts while you are down in the gutter reading loon blogs and thinking you know something.
Even when the facts are shown to you, you don't understsnd them. So they must be wrong.
I knew pretty early you were going to be fun.
Especially when it took me 2 weeks and several threads to get you to understand what a watt is. Arguing about temperature and thermodynamics. . Didn't know what a watt was.

Lmao..
Poor roflguy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #22)

Sat Jun 8, 2019, 10:38 AM

23. The atheist belongs to the cult of Global Warming

such blind faith is amazing to see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Da Mannn (Reply #23)

Sat Jun 8, 2019, 10:48 AM

24. Did you figure out the error in your OP there yet genius?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #24)

Sat Jun 8, 2019, 11:03 AM

25. Yes I was right, you were wrong

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Da Mannn (Reply #25)

Sat Jun 8, 2019, 11:09 AM

26. OP means "original post".

So, did you figure out there error in your OP there genius?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Da Mannn (Original post)

Sun Jun 9, 2019, 06:29 PM

27. Wow...who was the moron that had Al Gore running the NPS back then?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Sciencescience