Environmentalism is a Religion Complete with Miracles

_{Barry Arrington

May 30, 2017

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Such as global warming causing glaciers to shrink even though the local temperatures have NOT warmed. Robert Tracinski explains here.

BTW, medieval inquisitors called those who did not accept their views “heretics” or “infidels.” The religion of environmentalism also has heretics and infidels, but they are called “deniers.”

Comments

kmidpuddle, we will let you come back once again. I expect it will end the same way as all the other times -- expulsion for trollish behavior. You seem to have an obsession with commenting on this site. No matter how many times we toss you out, you always come back. As for your comment, no, Neil is manifestly not right. Good grief, what is wrong with you people? The point of the linked article is glaringly obvious and indisputable: You can't blame an increase in ambient temperature on the melting of the glaciers if the ambient temperature did not increase. Why is it so difficult for you to understand this?Barry Arrington_{May 31, 2017
May
05
May
31
31
2017
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT}

Barry, I'm afraid that Neil is correct. For example, fill a bucket with ice and water and let it equilibrate. From that time until after all of the ice has melted, the temperature of the water does not deviate. This physical fact is so well known that it is used to calibrate thermometers.kmidpuddle_{May 31, 2017
May
05
May
31
31
2017
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT}

A @ 16: Warmists...nice.Truth Will Set You Free_{May 31, 2017
May
05
May
31
31
2017
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT}

See, what Neil is doing is relying on a conceptual error about Global Warming: That it's Global. The only thing Global about it is that it's a statistical smear of temperature 'data' together. It has no real world Globalness to it. This way, Warmists can concoct their scare stories around a fantasy statistical boogeyman and he can have his gnarly imaginary fingers in all the stuff that happens. Andrewasauber_{May 31, 2017
May
05
May
31
31
2017
04:58 AM
4
04
58
AM
PDT}

The USGS give more details about why the glaciers are retreating:
Glaciers, by their dynamic nature, respond to climate variation and reveal the big picture of climate change. Unable to adapt, like living creatures, GNP’s relatively small alpine glaciers are good indicators of climate, the long-term average of daily weather conditions. A glacier forms when winter snowfall exceeds summer melting. Glaciers retreat when melting outpaces accumulation of new snow. Despite occasional big winters or frigid weeks that occur, the glaciers of GNP, like most glaciers worldwide, are melting as long term average temperatures increase. Analysis of weather data from western Montana shows an increase in summer temperatures and a reduction in the winter snowpack that forms and maintains the glaciers. Since 1900 the mean annual temperature for GNP and the surrounding region has increased 1.33°C (Pederson et al. 2010), which is 1.8 times the global mean increase. Spring and summer minimum temperatures have also increased (Pederson et al. 2011), possibly influencing earlier melt during summer. Additionally, rain, rather than snow, has been the dominant form of increased annual precipitation in the past century (Selkowitz et al. 2002). Despite variations in annual snowpack, glaciers have continued to shrink, indicating that the snowpack is not adequate to counteract the temperature changes. In conjunction with the past century’s long-term temperature increase, ocean-driven climate trends (Pacific Decadal Oscillation of PDO) influence GNP’s regional climate. Tree-ring based climate records reveal PDO effects that have resulted in 20-30 year periods of hot, dry summers coupled with decreased winter snowpack (Pederson et al. 2004). These periods have induced rapid recession, as high as 100 m/yr between 1917-1941, and influence the current rate of recession. Even during cooler phases of the PDO cycle, glaciers have continued to shrink, albeit at a slower rate. Glacier National Park, located in the mountainous region of northwest Montana, is experiencing effects of climate change related to changing snowmelt and precipitation patterns, exacerbating ecological and socioeconomic issues tied to water supply.
Also note that Pederson et al. 2010 use a different set of stations & find a clear trend. I'm not sure what's going on here & not all of the data seems to be available. (editted to close blockquote correctly)Bob O'H_{May 31, 2017
May
05
May
31
31
2017
02:43 AM
2
02
43
AM
PDT}

God help us.Barry Arrington_{May 30, 2017
May
05
May
30
30
2017
10:22 PM
10
10
22
PM
PDT}

A circuit breaker malfunction cut the electricity to my garage freezer, resulting in a meltdown (first in the freezer, second when the wife & I discovered it the next day). However, the power was not cut off on our kitchen refrigerator/freezer. The contents of that freezer did not change temperature. Unsurprisingly, there was no meltdown. So no, warming & melting ice in one locale does not necessarily entail warming & melting ice in another. Unless, of course, one argues that freezers & glaciers are quantum entangled...anthropic_{May 30, 2017
May
05
May
30
30
2017
09:33 PM
9
09
33
PM
PDT}

Barry @8, I like the way one side of this argument remains professional, and not given to emotional outbursts. The heat build up due to carbon emmission is trapped by our atmosphere. This leads to increased annual temps worldwide, and smaller glaciers. Surely this mean increase in global temps will one day effect Antarctica, hell, maybe even Montana. Once again I'll throw in the related question; what is so wrong with trying to eliminate CO2 emmissions? It's what is known as a win/win/win achievement.rvb8_{May 30, 2017
May
05
May
30
30
2017
09:03 PM
9
09
03
PM
PDT}

How does warming elsewhere cause melting in Montana?
The temperature increase is not a cause. It is an effect. The heat buildup is the cause. And the melting of the glaciers, and the warming in other areas are effects of that heat buildup. By "heat buildup", I mean the accumulation of thermal energy.Neil Rickert_{May 30, 2017
May
05
May
30
30
2017
08:27 PM
8
08
27
PM
PDT}

Neil at 9. Then how would you put it? How does warming elsewhere cause melting in Montana? Again, in order for your assertions to work, ambient temperatures would have to have a non-localized effect. Tell us how that works Neil.Barry Arrington_{May 30, 2017
May
05
May
30
30
2017
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT}

Glaciers in Montana are melting because it is warmer on average in England?
I certainly would not put it that way. The glaciers are melting and it is warmer in England. Both are because there is a build up of heat on the planet. But the temperature in Glacier National Park won't change much, because the melting glaciers keep it cool.Neil Rickert_{May 30, 2017
May
05
May
30
30
2017
07:28 PM
7
07
28
PM
PDT}

rvb8 @ 4. Are you going to join Neil and suggest that the heat caused by global warming has a non-localized effect such that warming in other parts of the planet can cause glaciers to melt in Montana where temps have remained constant? Drop a science bomb on us and tell us how that works.Barry Arrington_{May 30, 2017
May
05
May
30
30
2017
07:28 PM
7
07
28
PM
PDT}

Which do you prefer, human-caused warming or an ice age that sends all of the earth's population racing toward the equator? Sarah Kramer on glaciologist Brenda Hall: "One such effect may be that human-caused warming is delaying an overdue ice age. Hall’s research dated the beginning of the end of the last ice age to 18,000 years ago, but “interglacials” — the periods of relative warmth between glacial periods of an ice age—usually last only 15,000 years, meaning we’re overdue for another cold snap." http://climatechange.medill.northwestern.edu/2015/01/29/climate-change-may-be-stalling-overdue-ice-age/Truth Will Set You Free_{May 30, 2017
May
05
May
30
30
2017
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT}

Good grief Neil @ 5. Are you really going to go there? You understand that you are now positing that the heat caused by global warming has a non-localized effect. Really? Glaciers in Montana are melting because it is warmer on average in England?
The article to which you linked is talking about the temperatures in Glacier National Park. That’s pretty much like talking about the temperature inside the icebox.
Uh, yeah. That's because the melting ice in your example is in the ice box where temps have remained constant. I was half kidding about the whole "unthinking fideistic zealot" thing. I see now that I needn't have been.Barry Arrington_{May 30, 2017
May
05
May
30
30
2017
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT}

Neil, suppose it were demonstrated that the temperature in your icebox remained constant. Anyone who said the ice was melting because the icebox was warmer than it used to be would be considered a fool, an idiot or a liar, no?
I would call them wrong, rather than the other terms. But scientists would not say that ice is melting because the icebox is warmer. They would say that the ice is melting because area outside the icebox (presumably a room in a home) is warmer. Similarly, scientists don't say that the glaciers are melting because the temperature near the glaciers is getting warmer. Rather they say it is due to average temperature of the globe getting warmer. The article to which you linked is talking about the temperatures in Glacier National Park. That's pretty much like talking about the temperature inside the icebox.Neil Rickert_{May 30, 2017
May
05
May
30
30
2017
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT}

Living for a period in Henan China,( and now in a different part) I can say quite strongly that even the peasant farmers of this region have a more rational grasp on this growing disaster than do many posters here. Although corruption is rife throughout the government here, some parts of the beureaucracy work remarkably well. The ward of the Agricultural Dept responsible for water conservation, soil conservation, and addressing issues concerned with Manmade Global Warming, is very well run. The people I have met in this ward are professiona scientists not given to emotion or panick. This post by Barry would shock them into disbelief.rvb8_{May 30, 2017
May
05
May
30
30
2017
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT}

Complete with miracles and, as Neil demonstrates in his comment at 1, like all religions at least some of its adherents are unthinking fideistic zealots. Neil, suppose it were demonstrated that the temperature in your icebox remained constant. Anyone who said the ice was melting because the icebox was warmer than it used to be would be considered a fool, an idiot or a liar, no?Barry Arrington_{May 30, 2017
May
05
May
30
30
2017
06:02 PM
6
06
02
PM
PDT}

Neil, Global Warming is allegedly determined by calculating temperature anomalies derived from thermometer readings and estimations. Are you suggesting that method is erroneous? Andrewasauber_{May 30, 2017
May
05
May
30
30
2017
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT}

It's not religion. It's not miracles. It is just science. I grew up in the era of iceboxes. You would buy a block of ice to put in the icebox. The ice would melt, but the temperature in the icebox would not go up. Well, it would go up slightly, but not by very much. The melting ice absorbed most of the heat, and that prevented the temperature in the icebox from rising much. Glaciers are doing something similar. In the icebox era, you would not use a thermometer to check how fast the temperature was rising. Instead, you would look at how fast the ice is melting as the measure of the amount of heat. Scientists are doing the same with glaciers -- measuring how fast they are melting as a measure of the amount of heat.Neil Rickert_{May 30, 2017
May
05
May
30
30
2017
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply