This is part 5 in the series on the prediction that glaciers in Glacier National Park will be gone by 2020. You might want to see to part 1, part2, part 3 and part 4 if you haven’t already
This post is a follow-up on a previous post in this series, more specifically the post of Wikipedia rewriting history by suggesting that the 2030 prediction was a “later estimate”, following the 2020 prediction. Contrary to the reality that the 2020 estimate was an update of the 2030 estimate and the 2030 estimate was in fact rehashed after the 2020 claim was abandoned (probably because it became clear that the 2020 estimate would fail).
My take was that the Wikipedia contributor found that the 2030 estimate was made in an later snapshot of a National Park Service webpage and didn’t look at the estimates in the snapshots before 2010, therefor went from the assumption that the 2030 prediction was a later estimate. I think that this still holds, but that there is more to it than that.
This is part 4 in the series on the prediction that glaciers in Glacier National Park will be gone by 2020. You might want to see to part 1, part2 and part 3 if you haven’t already
Let me first tell you a story of a young student. Fast rewind to the beginning of the 1980s and this young, eager student took a practical exam chemistry. The exam consisted of some questions about lab practices and one practical test that had to be performed in the lab. That test was important because it counted for half of the points.
The easiest test that the students learned in that year was determining the amount of iron in a (self-prepared) iron salt solution. The procedure was pretty simple, it was by far the shortest test and the final calculation was also straight forward. Every student would get a different assignment, so all the students were dreaming of getting that specific question as their assignment.
At the beginning of the exam, the students had to draw a small piece of paper (with the name of the test that they had to perform) out of a box. When this young student drew his piece of paper out of the box, he read … determining the amount of iron in an iron salt a solution.
Yabba dabba doooooo!
Imagine the joy he felt, realizing that this exam would be a walk in the park… He looked forward getting a good grade.
This is part 3 in the series on the prediction that glaciers in Glacier National Park will be gone by 2020. You might want to see to part 1 and part2 if you haven’t already
The title of this page has been updated to reflect an later update.
During my research on the “All gone by the year 2020” prediction, I also encountered the Wikipedia page about the Glacier National Park (U.S.). My attention was immediately drawn to the sequence of the predicted estimates when glaciers would be gone according to a Wikipedia contributor (my emphasis):
Based on the warming trend of the early 2000s, scientists had estimated that the park’s remaining glaciers would melt by 2020; however, a later estimate stated that the glaciers may be gone by 2030.
As it is stated, it is seems that the “glaciers would melt by 2020” prediction came first and was followed by the later “gone by 2030” prediction. I went through a lot of material about those predictions in the last week and this statement is in fact the reverse of what happened in reality. The 2020 estimate was a 2009 update of the 2030 estimate that was made originally made in 2003. This post will explain how the Wikipedia contributor managed to switch the two.
This is part 2 in the series on the prediction that glaciers in Glacier National Park will be gone by 2020. You might want to see to part 1 if you haven’t already
There are some efforts to explain the failed “gone by the year 2020” prediction. These are however more difficult to find because they are so sparsely distributed and not to be found in the media, this contrary to the emotional “gone by the year 2020” claim that was broadcast and shared widely.
I found two justifications for the failed prediction. The first one is a paragraph on a webpage of the National Park Service dedicated to melting glaciers (emphasis by the National Park Service):
All glaciers in Glacier National Park (US) will be gone by 2020. That is the bold prediction that was communicated by the Glacier National Park officials. I learned about this claim viewing the story of Roger Roots who visited the St. Mary Visitor Center and noticed a diorama representing melting glaciers with following sign (my emphasis):
GOODBYE TO THE GLACIERS
The small alpine glaciers present today started forming about 7,000 years ago and reached their maximum in size and number around 1850, at the end of the Little Ice Age. They are now rapidly shrinking due to human-caused climate change. Computer models indicate the glaciers will all be gone by the year 2020.
He found this end date highly unlikely and prophesied that the park officials would have to remove that sign at some point. When he came back two years later, he saw that the diorama sign had been changed. One word in the second last sentence was changed and the last sentence (that computer models indicated that the glaciers will be gone by 2020) was replaced (my emphasis):
They are now rapidly shrinking due to human-accelerated climate change. When they will completely disappear, however, depends on how and when we act.
To me, that raised the question what exactly that claim was based on. Park officials don’t just put up such signs without a reason. They had to be really, really certain that claim was true, otherwise they wouldn’t communicate a date that was so close in the future. So what is the solid science behind this “gone by the year 2020” prediction?
While researching the post, I quickly came to the conclusion that I had too much material with different themes, so I will split it into smaller posts. In this post, I will give some more background about the claim that is needed to understand later posts on the subject.
In the first post of this year, I go back to a previous post, the first post in a series on global warming politics, more specifically on the Conversation article “Why some people still think climate change isn’t real” by David Hall, so I can wrap up that series.
Hall ends that Conversation article as follows:
What will make a difference is the power of the people – through regulation, divestment, consumer choice and public protest. Public surveys emphasise that, throughout the world, deniers are in the minority. The worried majority doesn’t need to win over everyone in order to win on climate change.
That is quite a inspirational paragraph to end his article with. Basically, the good guys (the convinced) are in the majority, the bad guys (the deniers) are in the minority and it will be the good guys who will make the difference.
Then I don’t see the problem that he tried to tackle in that article. If it is really true that the power of the people makes a difference and the worried ones are in the majority, then what are they waiting for? If the majority is worried and they are using their power of consumer choice and are willing to be regulated, then why didn’t this happened before?
Some seem to believe that a EU emission decrease will have a huge effect on world emissions, as is shown in this curious tweet from a Belgian politician (my emphasis):
Without getting the EU climate neutral, you will not get the world below 2 degrees C. And if we do not achieve that, the costs and losses cannot be foreseen.
This is a bold statement and it doesn’t make much sense. Firstly, the EU emissions were in the order of 10-11% of world emissions in 2018 and secondly, developing countries like China and India have strongly rising emissions without engagements to lower them, so their emissions are very likely to further increase in the future, likely even after 2030. Africa will likely follow soon.
He rightfully got criticized for that in the reactions on the tweet. In this post, I want to go a step further and try to find out how EU emissions relate to global emissions and to what extent these are big enough to compensate for the increase from the developing regions.