Last Saturday, I drove down to Mt. Rainier to look at the effects of global warming on the snow pack (and, incidentally, to do a little cross country skiing). Global warming theorists generally agree that one effect will be less snow on Rainier and, eventually, shrinking glaciers.
This black-and-white picture of the Jackson Visitor Center shows you how much snow Rainier could get, before global warming set in.
(I'm not sure just when it was taken, perhaps in the late 1940s, or the 1950s. Those who know car models better than I do may be able to help with the date.)
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(How was the cross country skiing? Pretty good, though I am so out of condition that I did not ski as far as I usually do. Incidentally, I have decided that I like the NIS bindings that I bought last November. They didn't feel quite right to me on the first outing so I moved them back one notch before I went out on Saturday, and that solved the problem. You can adjust NIS bindings in just a few seconds during a ski trip, if snow conditions make that advisable.
Conditions for sledding were excellent, though there were fewer kids at Rainier than I would expect on a sunny Saturday.
If you live in this area, you may want to time your trips with the "nowcast" that you can get from the Paradise webcam. If you want a forecast, remember that the address there is "Paradise Inn", not just "Paradise". And don't forget to carry chains in your car during winter months.
As always when I discuss global warming, I urge you to read my disclaimer, if you have not already done so.)
Posted by Jim Miller at March 24, 2008 01:48 PM | Email ThisAnd with 130 inches at the base, this week in the high 40's and nights near freezing, more snow predicited and it is March 24th, got to really wonder about all the claims? Posted by: TG on March 24, 2008 02:18 PM
And if anyone worries about my carbon footprint in traveling to the resort, and using all that energy to ride the ski lifts, I consider that offset by the fact that David Goldstein of HorsesAss is willing to type in poorboy gloves and keep his thermostat low. Thanks Goldy. Now I don't have to purchase any carbon credits from Al Gore, thus freeing me up to enjoy other things.
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 24, 2008 02:33 PM
There are maps and charts showing that it has retreated toward the mountain about a mile since photographed in about 1912. More recently, it has thickened considerably, suggesting that it will again begin to advance.
I hiked on fresh snow at a fairly low elevation Saturday, what did that prove? A photo of the Jackson Visitor Center taken...maybe last year...what did that prove?
We really need to again teach science and critical thinking - to better inform and understand all sides of this issue.
Posted by: BA on March 24, 2008 03:00 PMHowever, the GW side tries to debunk the skeptics side by avoiding the data the skeptics post. Kind of like at SP where the liberals here do a good job of hijacking threads by thowingup junk facts.
Posted by: swatter on March 24, 2008 03:09 PMThe Sun has been really quiet this last couple of months and the solar flux is hitting record lows. Lower energy into the planet, cooler temperatures. CO2 ain't innit...
Posted by: DaveH on March 24, 2008 03:12 PMMy point made about teaching science.
It wasn't so long ago that the theory of continental drift was considered completely bogus, now it is commonly accepted geology - until a better theory is advanced and tested.
Posted by: BA on March 24, 2008 03:21 PMTrue scientific discovery can only occur when both sides are able to presen their evidence. Not when one side owns the media and can stifle everyone else by stating "the debate is over".
We have already seen what happens to science when that occurs. Look up Galileo and Copernicus who was treated as a blasphemer for daring to suggest the earth revoled around the sun and not the other way around. That is what you have today with the liberal media dubbing anyone with contrary evidence a "denier".
Posted by: pbj on March 24, 2008 03:32 PM
The church relied on authority over uneducated masses - now, we have I guess uneducated masses receiving, and understanding, minimal information.
Still, when the opposing "educated" response is a photo identified as 50 years older than it really is, showing a particular instant in time and suggesting that this is somehow contrary "proof" - I'll return to the position that we need to teach science and critical thinking again.
Posted by: BA on March 24, 2008 04:11 PMOnly 7 yrs 10 mo and 2 days to go before AL Gore's Armageddon.
Posted by: GS on March 24, 2008 04:12 PMI do believe that's the same sort of resistance Galileo and Copernicus experienced.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on March 24, 2008 05:37 PMNothing to see here . . . move along.
Posted by: deadwood on March 24, 2008 09:29 PMhttp://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html Posted by: HW on March 24, 2008 09:32 PM
My observation is that attitudes are strangely cyclical. In August I meet many people who are distressed and very earnestly concerned about global warming. In February, skeptics abound.
Posted by: AD on March 24, 2008 09:41 PMOf course, Al Gore just announced he is going to spend $300 million in advertising to "fight global warming".
I know it's a bit duplicitous, but if we all shut up about AGW, maybe we could get on hands on some of it.
Posted by: John Bailo on March 24, 2008 10:37 PMGore and his cronies know all about that before and after stuff.
Just you wait and see!
Posted by: samadams on March 24, 2008 10:44 PMUnfortunately, that's the case in 95% of all threads on this subject, whether for or against.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on March 25, 2008 05:23 AM1. All the planets in the solar system saw a warming of 1 C through the 90's. I would bet with the current sun activity they are also Cooling like earth is.
2. If gobal warming models work why do they fall apart when starting in 1900. They only work if used if data starts in 1970. So if Global warming models are correct with all correction factors they should be able to follow more than a couple of decades of data.
3. Please explain to me why tempertures in about the time of MOses was 2C warmer than today. I know Moses was very stubborn but the burning bush could not by itself warmed up the planet warmer than today.
4. WHy is it that the models only work because so many Russian weather stations have been decommissioned that were part of the calculation of Global temperture. Since many of these stations were in Siberia and it is known to get very cold there. Please show me the correction factors used to take into account all these weather station closings. What would happen if you ignored all data from closed Russian Stations will the model still hold up.
5. Please explain to me why during the age of the Vikings that farming could take place in Greenland. It was very warm during the Viking exploration days. And those who went to greenland to live evenutally died out as temperatures dropped. Posted by: David Anfinrud on March 25, 2008 06:41 AM
About a week later he received a letter in the mail at home (anonymous, of course) saying the person had googled my friend and found where he lived and stated that he should be killed.
About a week after the letter, he was informed that someone had been calling the junior high where he coaches sports and was leaving anonymous messages that he should never be around children due to his "fanatical" beliefs around science and nature. His business was also targeted with calls from GW supporters who would call him a "denier" and then hang up.
It's a good thing that they are "tolerant" of other views, otherwise they could actually cause some harm. (** note the sarcasm in the last paragraph for those that didn't get it in the picture**).
Posted by: REB on March 25, 2008 08:16 AMThat was the LIBERAL version. After the revolution only Politburo members will have cars. You will take public transportation, wherever and whenever it condescends to go. There won't be any steenkin' new bicycles either, since metal-bashing requires motors and horsepower and stuff, so maintain yours - by hand - or walk.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on March 25, 2008 10:49 AMHow true! For instance, all delegates are equal but some delegates are equaler than others. Only in the "Democratic" Party...
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on March 25, 2008 11:03 AMThere are better articles out there, but here's what a quick google search yielded from 2000.
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/nationalassessment/newsletter/2000.02/Lakefx.html
Posted by: JD on March 26, 2008 07:12 PMPosted by: ljm on March 26, 2008 09:14 PM
Whatever 'usually' means with respect to climate, that is.
Posted by: swatter on March 27, 2008 07:40 AMhttp://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0823/p02s01-wogi.html
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1998_no_longer_the_hottest_yea.html
Many of you may have payed closer attention than I have over the years. We are taught and conditioned, now to believe whole heartedly in the global warming effect, and that we as people are responsible.
If you disagree you are a denier, a skeptic, a dinosaur who believes the world is flat. It's all insults and it's all bogus.
Here is the one truth that stands out to me above all else in the Global Warming debate. The theories a coming out faster than the technologies that are set to prove them. In other words scientific process has taken a back seat to being published by Time Magazine or some other constituent of the propaganda for fear campaign.
Sadly, so much about Global Warming is blown up hyper bowl that discounts the first billion years of the Earth's existence. A graph of the last 100 years to 200 years is no more an indicator of what will happen to the planet in the next 15 years, as the five minutes I have spent on this comment will tell you where I will be 20 years down the road from now. The charts look much different when a longer period of time is added into the chart as a reference.
How many times have we heard the phrase that the earth's climate is very complicated, and includes many factors? Why then do most models only show CO2 and Sun to figure out what will happen tomorrow? If it's so complicated shouldn't the entire system be taken into account? If it were we might have been able to account for the cool winter we have received.
I am not a denier, I am a skeptic. Contrary to popular belief I do know the earth is round and do believe there was a holocaust. I also believe the only thing that could be worse than killing an entire race of people, is to make trivial their death by using a petty insult who does not see Global Warming as the catastrophe everyone wants to make it.
I hope this is Global Warming, in fact. I think we should cheer warming on. Because the reverse side of the spectrum is global cooling and if you think Fossil Fuel consumption is bad now, imagine if it were 15 degrees cooler worldwide?
Now let the hate mail roll, wait I did this on the wrong site.
Posted by: Nate on March 31, 2008 09:23 PM