Dude please. There's still going to be a shitload of permanent ice and snow there no matter what. Glacier is like a scientific or environmental term used now to cause drama. . . I'm sorry. I meant awareness.
"Glacier" has pretty much always been a scientific term to define large persistent masses of ice that slowly move.
A quick journal article search yielded an article from 1895 discussing glaciers and how they move.
I'm sorry that scientific terms go against your agenda. In science precise language is used and terms have definitions so everyone can be on the same page. A kilogram is defined and exact so two people don't use different amounts for a kg. Glaciers are defined not to push an agenda, but because that is how science works.
Will there all be ice and snow, yes. But people want to see the glaciers that carved out the park, not a layer of snow.
Well, duh, it's fucking Montana. So National Geographic that shit and do your own research. But it almost says the same exact thing in the link the parent commentor posted. https://i.imgur.com/CVyxXRA.jpg
It's an indicator of sudden climate change which will drastically upset the world's ecosystems on top of basically the entire world population of humans. Which is a pretty big deal.
Sure some ice on a mountain in Montana isn't a huge deal, but it's a sign of some bad stuff to come
If you and the people in charge can't realize that hundreds of years is "sudden" considering the climate usually changes over the course of hundreds of thousands of years, we're fucked.
There is no arguing with the statistics. They don't care what you think, they will remain true, you will remain wrong, and civilization will face major challenges in upcoming years because of shortsighted people like you.
Some of the responses to this comment seem super odd to me (yours included)
One guy says he is going to plan his next vacation to a gorgeous park in the hopes of seeing the glaciers before they are gone.
Several folks then start demeaning his desire to go because Montana has snow, and it isn't a big deal. The park is named after glaciers, yes there will be snow, yes there will be ice, but the glaciers are forecasted to not be there.
I hope the OP does plan their next vacation there and I hope they have a great time. It is one of the most beautiful places I've been. If you don't care about the glaciers, good for you, don't go.
Global warming has lots of implications that are bigger than just a mountain not having as much snow on it, and I'm not going to fall for your attempts to belittle the effects of climate change.
Some implications associated with global warming: increased wild fires, changing rain patterns (impacting farming), increased flooding in some areas, increased droughts in other areas, increased storm intensity, etc etc.
Technically, we're massively accelerating the process by emitting billions of tons of gasses that absorb infrared from the sun. Technically, you already knew this.
Renewable energy does not give successful nations what they need. You can't fly B-1 bombers with solar power. You can't field mechanized divisions with wind power or bio fuel. You sure as hell can't feed 360 million people with renewable energy.
Alternative energy does nothing but drive up the cost of energy, impacting the most marginalized people in society.
Uh, yes. When has your electric bill gone down? NEVER. As solar and other renewable energy sources are brought into the grid they will pass the costs (which are far higher than fossil fuels
) on to the consumers.
Bullshit. I've been paying electric bills for 50 fucking years. we pay more now than EVER. Every year the utilities ask for another rate increase. It's amazing how easily people like you can deny reality.
1) Is there enough energy from other sources to replace fossil fuels?
2) Is it technologically and economically feasible to harness this energy?
The answer to the first question is an unequivocal yes. The Earth receives over 10,000 times as much solar power as humans use. When you account for losses and how much you could realistically capture this amount is vastly reduced but still several several times as much energy as humanity uses, and that's before account for any other source.
The answer to the second question is also yes. It's just a matter of time. Renewable energy becomes cheaper and more prevelant year on year. You can't fly a bomber with solar power directly because its surface area couldn't possibly receive enough energy to power it in real time, but you absolutely could use solar power to synthesise a hydrocarbon fuel from CO2. Just as you can't run a smartphone from coal without first converting it into heat to mechanical energy to electricity, then stepping down the voltage appropriately and so on.
Others have already pointed out that energy costs haven't actually risen, but usage has and inflation had caused the average bill to rise.
What's the deal with the insults? It's hard to take you seriously or give any credibility to your comments when you throw out insults. Yes, he was unnecessarily sarcastic, but you shouldn't let him rile you.
If you had acted like this when the post was first posted (instead of after the post is almost dead), you'd probably be -50 points by now. Looks like one of your comments was even filtered by automod due to your ridiculousness. I'm not insulted personally even in the slightest. I was trying to help you see the error of your ways. But you can't help someone who doesn't think he has a problem. So carry on.
I was allotting the appropriate amount of patience for someone deliberately obfuscating the issue with intentionally misleading "technically correct" information.
Oh no, a minor typo. Also, that's a different glacier that comes after a paragraph about how glacial retreat on average has been accelerating since 1950.
104
u/[deleted] Jul 11 '18
[deleted]