|
Post by slh1234 on Jul 25, 2009 15:30:26 GMT
Edit: I have to come back for this one after reading this from Steve: I know I spend a lot of time pointing out how easily someone will accept arguments that support what they want to believe, and will spend all their energy arguing against things that do not support what they want to believe, but this one surprised even me. No questions? No professional skepticism? No questioning of the fallacy that can develop from two people comparing results for accuracy? Not even a clarification of the meaning of "errors" as used in the statement? Just a wholesale swallowing of the line. OK almost my last word. In what way is your comment relevant to my criticism of icefisher's arguing technique and his abject failure to prove his absurd allegations that climate modeller developers are fraudulent and incompetent. Just once it would be nice for someone to at least acknowledge "yes it appears they might have done as good a job as possible of building a model" even if you then go on to argue that building a useful model is an impossible task. When that is done, perhaps a more civilised conversation might ensue about whether models might reasonable represent an earthlike climate and whether models subjected to a forcing from greenhouse gases, aerosols or solar effects might reasonably represent an earth-like response. If you read my posts you will find me discussing the unreasonably good results from 20th century hindcasts (implying that something, probably inadvertent, is up), the fact that models do not fully represent solar cycle variation, and the fact that models do not agree on feedbacks or even the relative causes of different sources of feedbacks. I will even accept that the apparent overlap of the models and satellite data when you take into account natural variability and uncertainty in the observations, is not yet good enough - though it is as much a question for the satellite data as the models. But when you get down to it. CO2 warms the climate, so the initial expectation really ought to be that more CO2 might just warm it more. My point is that you also believe what you want to beleive and argue against anything that disagrees with that point. Of course, everybody wants to believe they don't do that and that theirs is a correct method of debate. I think the modellers do the best job possible to build climate models. I do not think it is possible to model the climate accurately. How accurate they can get remains to be seen. That's great. Let's ackoowledge the models for just that. In that case, there is NO WAY that guideance should be given to political systems based on those models. They are still in development, and have not yet shown that they can accurately predict the climate 20 years out. Hindcasting is not the same thing as forecasting. An example of a model I think is useful is the one used to project the path of a tornado. But the interesting thing about that: The path is projected in a wedge shape out from the current position of the tornado. The farther out in time it goes, the more margin for error there is, and this is reflected in the wedge shape. Truth be told, the meteorologists can see the hook in the doppler radar, and see that there might be a tornado there, but until spotters see the tornado, they can't be sure there really is a tornado, and certainly can't see if it is on the ground. In their model projections, they likewise cannot tell if the tornado will still be on the ground in 10 minutes. I think that is an ethical use of modelling. They recognize and acknowledge the limitations and recommend action based on that. The limitations are not acknowledged in climate models. We know that all factors are not known, and in fact, it is probably not possible to accurately model the climate on as long a scale as they are trying to do - especially not with the data types we have to work with in modern computing. If they want to develop these models, then great, let's recognize that development for what it is - development. It is not something we should be basing political decisions on.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Jul 21, 2009 13:36:34 GMT
Thanks for dropping by Steve Easterbrook, but I'm kind of embarrassed now that you found the link from here to your site and got involved Well I for one found it interesting that an independent "audit" or whatever you might call it, comes up with a lower rate of errors than NASA software, and it seems to fit with my observation that you can iron out bugs by repeated testing just as well as you can iron them out by high quality V&V procedures in the "one-shot" scenario in which you can't run in full production mode till the critical moment. It'd be nice for people to acknowledge that maybe these models *are* adequately verified and audited before moving on to the question as to whether they are validated as well. One method of validation is comparing a model against a chosen set of observations in a different set of scenarios (eg. Pinatubo, winter/summer differences, the 1998 El Niño). Another is what socold said - comparing with results from different organisations who are doing a similar work. In both cases, given that a model is not and cannot be a perfect representation of the earth, a high degree of judgement is required as to what observations are useful, and peer review is one way of getting that judgement. There are a number of kinds of "errors" in code. The more complex the code becomes, the more types of errors and more errors there can be. What is meant when someone claims that there are fewer errors in one set of code than in another? What types of audits are performed that can locate compelx logic errors that only show up in specific scenarios down code paths that are seldom followed? The types of testing that you mention may produce a beta product, but I am very skeptical that it can produce a mature "technology" (to borrow the terminology of my industry.) Even after rigorous testing (regression testing included) errors can show up after deployment due to situations that cannot be tested. This happens frequently in the commercial world to system programmers as well as application programmers. (I'll compare with system programmers here because of my experience with the two.) By "Situations that cannot be tested" I don't mean they are lax in testing, but with millions of lines of code in a relational database system, for example, there are many millions more scenarios that can develop. At some point, someone does something that nobody could anticipate. That doesn't always produce a bug, but sometimes it does. That's a part of the maturing of the technology with commercial software. Literally, there are millions of users, and just as many scenarios. Occasionally, an error is discovered, but it is an error that auditing would never have detected. There are those of us who are responsible for reproducing those errors so the exact situation causing the unexpected results can be identified and it can be evaluated to determine what else is affected, how it can be fixed, it can then be fixed and go back to regression testing. And sometimes, that fix does introduce errors in other parts of the application or platform, and sometimes they are not found until someone else does something else unexpected with it. I have to agree with you that the earth can never be accurately represented in software. That's part of my issue with modeling anything. My skepticism in this area has nothing to do with the competency of the people trying. It has a lot more to do with my experience with system/platform development. One thing that experience tells me is that verifiable usage is essential in the maturing of a technology. I don't see how that can happen with models such as climate models. Edit: I have to come back for this one after reading this from Steve: I know I spend a lot of time pointing out how easily someone will accept arguments that support what they want to believe, and will spend all their energy arguing against things that do not support what they want to believe, but this one surprised even me. No questions? No professional skepticism? No questioning of the fallacy that can develop from two people comparing results for accuracy? Not even a clarification of the meaning of "errors" as used in the statement? Just a wholesale swallowing of the line.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Jul 21, 2009 1:32:10 GMT
NASA software standards are by far the highest in the world. And for good reason. When you have a one off shot to get a multimillion spacecraft right you try to be very very careful indeed. Hello people! I heard my name mentioned, so I thought I'd pop in and join the conversation. It's interesting that folks here should be asking about V&V of climate models because that's exactly what I'm doing. As Steve mentioned, I've worked on the software V&V projects for the Shuttle, Space Station, and various planetary probes. I'm now examining climate models. The shuttle software is reputedly the most expensive (per line of code) in the world: $35 million per year. If you want to offer that much funding for software development to climate modeling centres, I'm sure they'd be delighted. Commercial sofware, e.g. for the banking sector, tends to have around around 1 error for every 100 lines of code. I guess those claiming to be "auditors" on this board aren't doing their job very well The shuttle software is two orders of magnitude better: about 1 error per 10,000 lines of code. (the shuttle flight software is about 400,000 LOC altogether) Even more interestingly, my preliminary measurement of one particular climate model (from the Hadley centre) is even better than the shuttle: around 0.3 errors per 10,000 lines of code. Now, I have a lot more work to do to validate that number, and to see if other models are similar. And there are all sorts of methodological problems with comparing defect rates of different types of software, which I'd be happy to explain if you're interested. But if my initial measurements are anywhere near correct, it's extremely impressive. How do they do it? Well, it turns out that they spend a huge amount of time doing something that every other software organisation (including NASA) skimps on: end-to-end regression testing. Every time a scientist makes a small change to the model, they run both the old and new versions of the code in full simulation mode, and check that the model exhibits the expected change in behaviour, and without breaking anything else. It's a scientific experiment, with proper controls and everything. It is expensive (maybe more expensive than the shuttle software), but doesn't get measured as "expensive software development", because it gets measured as "scientists doing science". Hundreds of them, doing it every day, on some of the most expensive supercomputers in the world. Oh, and they have very extensive Model Intercomparison Projects too, in which the outputs of models from different centres are compared in intricate detail on the same set of benchmark scenarios. Again, I know of no other software in the world for which this would be standard practice. It's remarkably effective for finding errors and understanding the software. So, I have plenty of evidence that at least one climate modeling centre has software development practices that are more effective and more mature than NASA's flight software organisations. I'll be publishing detailed results of these studies later this year. How are floating point errors or loss of significance accounted for? or the drift that floating point errors or loss of significance can contribute to subsequent mathematical operations? What floating point data types are used? Those are the first questions I have for the process. I've wondered that for a while, but haven't found anyone familiar with the code that could answer those.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Jul 2, 2009 14:49:30 GMT
Denial is a tactic I see a lot on this issue. When I first read about Global Warming back in the mid 80's (and I believed it at that point), it was stated with no uncertainty that by the end of the 1990's that New York Harbor would have a climate like Miami Beach. Yet, when I bring up things like that now, people like Steve will start out with "I don't know where you read that because ... " slh1234, only just spotted this. Please do not pretend that you can anticipate what I will say, because clearly you can't. I do know where you read it. You read it in the media. And I don't really care what the media says. That wasn't anticipating what you might say, it was quoting what you said back when you used the monniker only5teve - one of your earliest posts on that board. The only reason I used you specifically because that was a specific example.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Jul 2, 2009 14:45:46 GMT
We might also add in addition to a cool summer, a wet summer. I see the UK summer 2007 and summer 2008 had the highest rainfall amounts since 1914. Australia is now experience exceptionally high rainfall. Cold and cloudy. The tropics 2007 and 2008 had the highest rainfall in 20 years. From a mechanism standpoint high GCR appears to also affect the jet stream. Locations that are not experience a wet summer, such as Western Canada, are experiencing a dry summer due to the change in the jet stream. The area where I live, Calgary, Alberta, has been exceptionally cold, cloudy, however, there has not been above average rainfall in this area. Surrounding areas are experiencing drought without hot summer temperatures. Is there any chance you could send some of that rain to California? We've been very dry the last years, and it has continued through this year. I was hoping for a little el Nino this year so we would get some rain ... it hasn't happened for us.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Jun 30, 2009 14:09:14 GMT
You are really thick stevie. I just told you that my game was to bully you into making dumb emotional replies, and you have immediately done it again. This is like slapping a defenseless baby. I am beginning to feel a little guilty. Broadly speaking, if a minimum wage employee can feed clothe and house themselves to an acceptable standard, pay for health insurance, and are unlikely to slip into poverty or be a drain on the state when they retire, then given that you're in a first-world country, that's fine by me.You are incredibly naive stevie. And quite obviously, you have never provided a job to anyone. Broadly speaking, what the hell is an acceptable standard? We have a lot of very fat poor people here. Do the 300 pounders deserve more money for food, clothing, health care, and living space than the skinny ones? You forgot about transportation and entertainment. What if a minimum wage worker has eight kids and a couple of wives? Does he get ten times as much pay as the single childless guy? What about the lazy drug addled clown who is half as productive as his fellow workers? Ah pay him, it's not his fault. What about the poor people who don't even have a minimum wage job stevie-don't you care about them? Well, let's mandate a 30 hour work week and then everybody will have a job. But could we compete in the World economy anymore? No problem, we will revive the Depression Era Smoot-Hawley Trade War Law, but we will win this time. And all of the increased costs of our humane employment policies will come out of the profits that the slimy polluting capitalists have been sucking out of the downtrodden poor forever. Hey, let's simplify the policy so that the prols can understand it: From each according to his/her/transgender abilities, to each according to his/her/transgender needs. Why do I have to have provided a job to someone to have a say in this. I can see when my taxes have been used to subsidise the low pay of tight-fisted successful businesses whose success has continued despite introduction of a minimum wage. A minimum wage couple should be able to rent a one bed flat in a cheapish area of most towns. The minimum wage is one amount that doesn't cater for average hamburger/crystal meth consumption. I don't believe in a low minimum working week or inventing fake jobs for unemployed telephone sanitisors. Maybe you don't have to have created a job to have a say, but it certainly changes your perspective in this argument. From someone who has tried 3 times unsuccessfully to run a business (ventures which lasted between 1 year and 7 years), I will naturally have a different perspective on this. My wife has been successful with running her business - she is obviously better than I am at it. First of all, a minimum wage worker is NOT a skilled worker of any stripe. Even most unskilled workers are not minimum wage workers. Most times, a minimum wage worker is a high school student working for the summer, or for a few hours after school. They're not going to rent an apartment in any part of town - cheapish or expensivish. To get a more stable unskilled or semi-skilled employee, an employer will have to pay considerably more than minimum wage because that person really does need to rent or buy a house in the cheapish part of town. Turnover is expensive even wtih unskilled or semi-skilled labor. But one of the most interesting things to me was walking through the shop and hearing conversations about how "you know they're making money" when we were so far in the red I wasn't sure how I was going to make payroll that cycle. It's interesting to me how those businesspeople are always viewed as being greedy. Those workers who expect that businessperson to share the wealth with them even though they have taken no risk, Will not accept any risk, have developed no skills at running the business, have not even taken advantage of the opportunities to learn a skill that the business has given them, etc. somehow always think they are entitled to more of what the business earns (or what they think it is earning). That is also greed. Sometimes, those pepople fall prey to that "they're telling you what you're worth" argument, but that is completely untrue. The business pays a market value for the labor. What I make is entirely dependent on what the business can sell my product (skill) for - it is a market value of my skills. Now that I don't have to try to run a business, I like that arrangement. But the point is that creating a job most definitely will change a person's perspective on the topic.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Jun 30, 2009 4:17:55 GMT
Denial is a tactic I see a lot on this issue. When I first read about Global Warming back in the mid 80's (and I believed it at that point), it was stated with no uncertainty that by the end of the 1990's that New York Harbor would have a climate like Miami Beach. Yet, when I bring up things like that now, people like Steve will start out with "I don't know where you read that because ... " You have to come to grips with the fact that MANY claims have been made and publicized through the last couple of decades that have just not borne out. That's another reason why some (like me) don't believe it. I think it's just another scare put out by those with political motivations, and those who always think the world has never been this bad before and thus is coming to an end. It's like the threat of a pandemic that would kill millions. Or the threat of nuclear war. Many claims have been made that these would happen (SARS, bird flu, swine flu, india vs pakistan, USSR vs US, etc etc). Obviously all these claims were wrong. But that doesn't mean they are not a threat. Some people would say both will inevitably happen given enough time. It doesn't change a thing about what I said. It's still a political tactic to scare someone into complying quickly and without questioning. I'd say it's much more like the cancer scares of the 1980's where rats were given levels of substances like saccharin orders of magnitude above the proportional amount humans were taking in on sodas in order to prove that saccharin was a health hazard. But that was effective on one thing: It kept someone in a job until the cancer scare died down. Fear is a great motivator. Every time a politician tries to use it to motivate you, you'd be very wise to stop, think, and ask questions.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Jun 28, 2009 19:58:26 GMT
Come on arctic sea ice has been in decline for decades now. It wasn't based on a single year. 2007 simply suggested the possibility that the pace of the decline had sped up. It cannot be explained entirely by weather conditions, it was also the degredation of sea ice over those decades of decline that allowed certain weather conditions to have such an effect. Look how low 2008 got without those same weather conditions for example. Also it wasn't predicted the arctic would be ice free in 2008. North Pole (not the entire arctic) was given a 50/50 chance. Nor was this based on co2. Noone thought "hey co2 has risen another 2ppm in the past year, therefore the North Pole might be ice free this summer". It was more "After last years melt and decades of decline the ice is becoming more succeptible to large melt in summer and the north pole might be ice free this year" Denial is a tactic I see a lot on this issue. When I first read about Global Warming back in the mid 80's (and I believed it at that point), it was stated with no uncertainty that by the end of the 1990's that New York Harbor would have a climate like Miami Beach. Yet, when I bring up things like that now, people like Steve will start out with "I don't know where you read that because ... " You have to come to grips with the fact that MANY claims have been made and publicized through the last couple of decades that have just not borne out. That's another reason why some (like me) don't believe it. I think it's just another scare put out by those with political motivations, and those who always think the world has never been this bad before and thus is coming to an end.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Jun 9, 2009 14:07:49 GMT
If you don't trust Mauna Loa look elsewhere. In this instance, I mentioned Mauna Loa because of its high altitude. There is other evidence of high altitude CO2. The plots in this paper show CO2 levels at between 8km and 13km of 356ppm in 1993 and 368 in 1999. Aircraft observation of carbon dioxide at 8–13 km altitude over the western Pacific from 1993 to 1999 HIDEKAZU MATSUEDA*, HISAYUKI YOSHIKAWA INOUE and MASAO ISHII , Tellus B Volume 54 Issue 1, Pages 1 - 21 Published Online: 20 Mar 2002 www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118916481/abstractThis paper's abstract says that the difference between lower stratosphere and upper troposphere is 1-2 ppm. Temporal and spatial variations of upper tropospheric and lower stratospheric carbon dioxide TAKAKIYO NAKAZAWA*KOHJI MIYASHITA**SHUHJI AOKI*** and MASAYUKI TANAKA*, Tellus B Volume 43 Issue 2, Pages 106 - 117 Published Online: 5 Nov 2002 www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119353747/abstractAltitude would be a reason for choosing Mauna Loa (if it can be trusted) over someplace like Barrows (which sits near sea level). But at its highest it is still just over 4 KM in altitude. The aircraft observations at higher altitude would offer a much stronger suggestion. I'll look at that. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Jun 9, 2009 14:03:19 GMT
Second time I've seen you refer to Mauna Loa, so I need to ask this again: Where are the monitoring stations on Mauna Loa, and how do they compare with the rest of the earth? I don't think this is a trivial matter if monitoring for CO2 is conducted here.Readings at Barrow, Alaska and the South Pole are both similar to Mauna Loa (i.e. within a few ppm) I would be interested to see that. Do you have links to the raw data. I would also be interested if any monitoring is done like 100 miles off of Hawaii - that would also prove interesting in seeing what effect the volcanic eruptions have on data collected on Mauna Loa.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Jun 9, 2009 6:49:13 GMT
So let me put a little perspective on Hawaii, and why I am skeptical of CO2 readings from Mauna Loa. First, of all, most of the pictures I will link to will come from pushpin 1 in this link. The summit of Mauna Loa is at pushpin 2. The road we drove up is very narrow, and I can't find it in aerial shots of Mauna Loa, but it falls between Kilauea (pushpin1) and the summit of Mauna Loa: www.bing.com/maps/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTSN&cp=19.42742~-155.466843&style=h&lvl=11&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&sp=Point.m71pj521snsp_Lookouts%20to%20Kilauea%20Caldera____~Point.m7c4mq2110sg_Mauna%20Loa._Or%20course%2C%20we%20didn't%20hike%20above%20the%20road.%20We%20got%20into%20Lava%20Flows%2C%20Weather%20prevented%20us%20from%20hiking%20higher.___&encType=1 Standing around the caldera of Kilauea, you can see activity like this: lkqcmw.blu.livefilestore.com/y1p-0gZXYPNW9Sel7TXYcqKBQ_7gdNj_nFqkxrb92ii5SLcyhr9OnIRTPHgfvsz5xXSuXmC4MUu9LA_WECXPbjDtQ/DSC01411.jpgTo get a perspective on the size of the crater emitting the gas there, look for the man walking in the crater here. I assume the person is a researcher since this area was closed to the public: lkqcmw.blu.livefilestore.com/y1pSzwMEmUEepBeeJA1G2Vkx9PyXSf4NxHTEqeXZI01bc91IjRFybElPGfp89a1_ixrj4lEKuSxVC1-5aIWqWOFcg/DSC01420.jpgFrom another perspective, look at the state of the air (careful here, not all of this is smoke - some is steam. Sometimes, it's hard to tell the difference. I'm sure it all combines to just form volcanic smog. But whatever it is, you can smell it very strong through here): lkqcmw.blu.livefilestore.com/y1praX27xTM085P9bVLVG3HFKsA5SmbgDnX5KSML_sG9ifRzWgnbwRRZZgK5okL34U2YjE1LwokJXe-hm9zPLDhbQ/DSC01395.jpglkqcmw.blu.livefilestore.com/y1p-8ABZCscb_l50zWQzqYu1WAjGDZw0Fvy4ycgVCjBaKw-97Rcsmc_oK7vBIEKR1Cr5KK2z0KiwQu2BgRuryLd-g/DSC01388.jpgAnd looking at the original map, on a road where I could still smell the sulfur dioxide, somewhere possibly less than 6 miles away from this point are stations where carbon dioxide levels are monitored. And let's not forget that Mauna Loa is still active, and still has major eruptions every twenty years or so, so CO2 could very well be emitted by it as well. So I would think that it would be interesting to monitor CO2 on Mauna Loa, but personally, I think it is ridiculous to think its proximity to active volcanoes has negligible effects on the levels monitored there. I'm certain the Sulfur Dioxide is affected by its proximity to active volcanoes. So I think the CO2 levels monitored there are useful, but I'm going to have a hard time believeing that they are meaningful for any area outside of the Big Island of Hawaii. (And completely aside, here is where the current lava flow from Kilauea hits the ocean: lkqcmw.blu.livefilestore.com/y1pw6bmVzEK_7rxcJW_EjfkEoJZua3nAuDY6rLBuSG2BUZnlZjzGmmEnxkDdslQfOOhd-jYLCqijrqXTgNulAjgvw/DSC01494.jpg
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Jun 9, 2009 6:18:19 GMT
Does anyone have any data on the concentration of CO2 by altitude? I don't have a link, but I believe that it is reasonably well spread throughout the atmosphere. For example, the data from Mauna Loa a few kilometres up lines up with other low-altitude stations. Second time I've seen you refer to Mauna Loa, so I need to ask this again: Where are the monitoring stations on Mauna Loa, and how do they compare with the rest of the earth? I don't think this is a trivial matter if monitoring for CO2 is conducted here. I ask this because of a trip to Hawaii just a couple of weeks ago. We hopped across to the Big Island to visit Kilauea. I had this whole thing about monitoring for CO2 on Mauna Loa in mind, and I drove up Mauna Loa. Of course, I didn't see anything I would recognize as a monitoring station. The jungle is very thick on both sides of this one lane road that goes up Mauna Loa for most of the way up as high as you can drive. The road ends somewhere around nine thousand feet of elevation, but Mauna Loa is over thirteen thousand feet at the summit. But as high as we went, I could STILL smell sulfur dioxide from Kilauea. Of course, that's the direction of the wind that day, and Sulfur Dioxide levels had certain roads inside Hawaii Volcanoes National Park closed that day. It seems to me that if sulfur dioxide is in concentrations that it can still be smelled, then Kilauea could also have a significant effect on CO2 levels here - especially if the wind is blowing in the right direction. So where are they? and what effect does Kilauea, and at times Mauna Loa itself have on monitored CO2 levels here? I think that HAS to be known for any creditibility at all to be lent to CO2 monitoring on Mauna Loa. It's not a matter that can be glossed over.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Jun 9, 2009 4:46:09 GMT
Off the a cool start here in the USA. Snow in S. Dakota June 6th. Trouble getting into the 90's in the SouthEast. Cool in the Northeast. Here in S. California we've had very unusual rain and thunderstorms accompanied by cool weather. Two people struck and killed by lightning in the Los Angeles area. Lightning is so rare here that people don't know the precautions to take. For this to happen in June is unheard of. Will the remainder of the summer stay cool or will we see AGW warming? You have to be very careful picking out spots and quoting the weather. My travels last week took me to Seattle, then up to Vancouver, BC. They had a heat trough over them through most of the week, so it was sunny, and upper 80's (f) there. It blew over Friday and the temps dropped very significantly, but my understanding from my bro (who lives in Poulsbo, and works in Seattle) was that it hit 90 in Seattle on Thursday. I was in Vancouver that day, and it was upper 80's there. I noticed the weather on my weather gadgets (that I always have set to look at home, and where I'm travelling to), and the temp in Seattle on Thursday was 14 degrees fahrenheit WARMER than in San Jose, CA where I live (when I'm not on the road). So you can point to snowfall in South Dakota on June 6th, but others can point to record heat in the Pacific North West. But now, that warm weather is gone from Seattle and Vancouver. (But interestingly, we're once again cooler in San Jose than they are in Seattle ... ) No point other than to say, "Don't get too excited about anecdotes."
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on May 19, 2009 21:27:45 GMT
I had a trip to Juneau about a year ago. I know exactly where that picture was taken from. But when I was there, the area in front of the glacier was all frozen in. This was actually in March of that year.
I met up with a guy right about where that picture is taken from. This guy told me that he had been there for about 20 years, and that he loves to photograph the glacier in the winter. He leads gold panning tours in the summer months.
We talked about glacier extent at that time, and where it was in previous years. There was retreat according to him. He could point out where the glacier was about 10 years ago, and could show it to me in pictures. It has retreated, but 30 feet in a year? That is another one of those exaggerations that makes me so skeptical of EVERYTHING I read from a news source these days. It makes good drama, but unfortunately, it is categorically overblown.
I'm going back and looking at my pictures that I took at that time, trying hard to compare the forward face of the Mendenhall Glacier in my pictures with the forward face in those pictures. Interesting that it is obviously later in the year in the picture accompanying that story, but it is completely imperceptible if there is any difference at all. A 30 foot retreat (assuming this is over a year later) should be pretty easily seen in the photos because of the distinctive landmarks on the edges of the glaciers, but it just is not perceptible ... again, I keep thinking that it is obviously later in the year, and supposedly a year later, and yet there is still no perceptible retreat despite claims like that. I guess maybe those claims work on people who don't actually go there, though.
But something else missing from the story is the layout of the land around Juneau. The mountains behind Juneau from Gastineau channel are incredibly steep. I could stand out there and watch small avalanches come down the extrememly steep slopes of those mountains. As I drove out of Juneau to "end of the road," it was obvious that these steep walls are just typical of the mountains around Juneau. When I saw how Mendenhall Glacier had carved out the valley you see in that picture, it all made perfect sense. The glaciers retreating are not a new thing here. The geography strongly suggests that ALL of the valleys - including the one where Gastineau channel is now located - were carved out by glaciers. The retreat is not a new thing - it has obviously been taking place for a long time leaving those steep valley walls behind. If you go there, look at the mountainsides, and go to Mendenhall Glacier and tell me they weren't shaped by the same force. Of course, I doubt we'll see any reference to that from a news story (It is more important to sell a paper than to be accurate).
So once again, I see an over-dramatized news story with a surface-deep conclusion designed to sell papers - not to inform. As someone else pointed out, only one cause for land rise (if it is real) was even considered, and that cause was exactly what the writer wanted to see (as was the land rise for that matter). In my mind, this becomes just another example of why newspapers are not to be trusted on either side of an issue like this (or for that matter, on any side of a political story). Unfortunately, I don't find anything I can trust on this issue.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on May 4, 2009 18:43:34 GMT
I think that was why the emphasis was added to the word love. That passage is often misquoted to leave out the word "love." And, as I understand, it is not really "all" in the sense that all evil is caused by money, but rather, the passage might be more accurately translated as "The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil." And exactly who gets to determine if I love my money too much? Mike You'll have to answer that for me. Who gets to determine that for you? My point was in clarifying the (mis) quote.
|
|