RSS
More Feeds












God's Politics

The Vanishing Scenery of Glacier National Park

by Wes Granberg-Michaelson 08-06-2009

If anyone still doesn’t believe in global warming, come to Glacier National Park.  My wife Karin and I just spent two days of our vacation here.  We haven’t been here in 20 years, and first visited about 30 years ago.  It’s a majestic wonderland, and from what I’ve seen, it’s probably the most spectacular mountain scenery in the lower 48 states.

Glaciers carved out this scenery millions of years ago, and glaciers still exist here today.  When first seen by early explorers a little more than a century ago, 136 glaciers were identified, named, and documented in the Glacier National Park area.  Today, there are 25 left.  For the past 15 years, one glacier has been lost annually.

Karin and I reached Logan Pass, the summit of the famous Going to the Sun Road.  We stopped at the Visitor’s Center and listened to a talk by a National Park Ranger on the glaciers.  Scientists studying the retreat and melting of the glaciers originally estimated that all the glaciers in Glacier National Park would be gone by 2030.  Now they have revised that estimate to 2020, 11 years from now.

It’s true, the ranger explained, that there have been some “normal” cycles of warming and cooling over many thousands of years affecting things like glaciers, icecaps, etc.  But the rate of glaciers melting in this park is unnatural and unprecedented, faster than at any time known in history.  It is clearly the result of the burning of fossil fuels, and human actions raising the earth’s temperature.

But here’s the thing.  For Karin and me, this is personal experience.  We remember visiting Glacier National Park when our son was a toddler—probably 2 or 3—and our daughter was an infant. (Today, they are 25 and 27.) We were with our brother and sister-in-law.  At Logan Pass, we hiked out on the trail.  J.K., our son, was on the shoulders of his uncle Dan.  Karin and I remember what the glaciers looked like.  We recalled where the snow and ice were.  We knew vividly what Jackson Glacier looked like at the time, and others.  And the difference in what we saw this past Monday was stunning.

It’s one thing to talk about global warming as a theory.  It’s another thing to be some place where you can see and experience its effects first hand. I began working on the threat of global warming, and the response of Christians, when I started my service with the World Council of Churches in 1988.  There were plenty of skeptics at the time.  But today, most recognize how the human causes of climate change are an assault on the gift of God’s good creation, and a betrayal of our biblical responsibility to serve as stewards and earth-keepers.  Yet, in the two decades since then, the glaciers have been melting faster than ever.

Last month the House of Representatives passed legislation to address climate change.  It calls for a 17 percent reduction of greenhouse gases by 2020 (when the last of the glaciers I saw Monday would be gone), and 83 percent by 2050.  My friends who follow this closely, like Jim Ball of the Evangelical Environmental Network and John Carr at the U.S. Catholic Conference, worry that its provisions are not strong enough, and that funds to assist developing nations to make adaptations in their greenhouse emissions are completely inadequate.  Even so, lobbyists are pushing to significantly weaken what the Senate will pass.

Members of Congress are going home for the August recess.  Why not send them to visit Glacier National Park?  Examine the evidence.  Melting glaciers are like the canary in the coal mine.  In the end, this isn’t about scenery.  It’s about survival, especially for the poor and vulnerable, who have the least defenses and will be the most seriously affected by the patterns of drought, rising sea levels, and intensification of hurricanes that result from climate change.

Wes Granberg-Michaelson is General Secretary of the Reformed Church in America.

Share or bookmark this post:
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Mixx
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
advertisement


Comment Code of Conduct

I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for every member of the Sojourners online community, especially toward those with whom I disagree—even if I feel disrespected by them. (Romans 12:17-21)

I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)

I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)

I will hold others accountable by clicking "report" on comments that violate these principles, based not on what ideas are expressed but on how they're expressed. (2 Thessalonians 3:13-15)

I understand that comments reported as abusive are reviewed by Sojourners staff and are subject to removal. Repeat offenders will be blocked from making further comments. (Proverbs 18:7)

  • JohnTBall
    Ice in the past have shown everything from old Japanese temples, samurai, dragons, and today's athletes, ice best snow blower girls, political figures, and fifty feet tall dinosaur.
  • Anothernonymous
    Here's some follow-up. I forwarded the xtronics link about Richard Feynman to a well-known physicist and best-selling author who is probably the intellectual successor to Feynman in terms of promoting educated skepticism about trendy scientific orthodoxies. His response (drum roll please):

    • The evidence for human-caused global warming is irrefutable.
    • The evidence that climate change is accelerating at an alarming rate due to human activity is irrefutable.
    • We have a very short window of opportunity to avoid disaster on an unthinkable scale, and we must use it wisely.

    In short, Feynman's name and intellectual heritage are being shamelessly exploited by people who don't know what they're talking about.
  • Bungarra
    Time for a bit of realism. Sure eliminate where possible fossil fuel use. That will fix a few other problems as well like mercury pollution of the oceans.

    All that is heard here is how many jobs will be lost etc in coal or oil.

    Surely there will be many new jobs created. Just maximising our biomass potential will assist to repopulate rural areas. It might even reduce the need for agricultural subsidies which distort world trade and impoverish other peoples.

    Time to look at the restraints to change, bureaucratic rules, monopolies, and disguised subsidies.

    Just to deny the conclusion of multidisciplinary science to preserve a world view that all is OK, which happens to support very powerful and short term interests is not wise stewardship of the planet.

    Interested to see a report in New Scientist – the British based science magazine = to the Scientific American, where temperatures in the ice cores and the Black Death seem to be correlated. As the population of Europe decreased, carbon dioxide concentrations declined due greater forestation of unused farm land. Temps also went down. The inference is that rapid change is possible.

    From a Bundarra’s perspective, a warmer world will make basking in the sun more attractive apart from mid day during summer; yet leave less time for the cool seasons rest. If drought kills the vegetation and the sand hills start to move, not so good.
  • ando
    It seems that the global warming debate is being discussed ad nauseum. For the non-deniers, how do you propose that we address the issue? I doubt if the jet-flyin', good-fun lovin' liberals will want to stop their flights to Europe, or cut down on computer usage, or generally want to change their lifestyles any more than the global-warming deniers. And, what happens to those clunkers after they've been cashed in? Do they disappear into thin air. (kind of ironic that the warming crowd doesn't want to shut down the automobile industry for good). Also, how does the National Park crowd actually get there? Doesn't one have to expend fossil energy to enjoy the environment? We just hiked in Rocky Mountain Natl. Park. Kind of hard to get there from the Midwest by bike, though. Maybe next time we can take the train with our two young children. Course, the train doesn't go into the Park.

    Perhaps the way approach is to resort to everyone living in cities (except farmers), within reach of mass transit, ride a bicycle, walk or use a horse and buggy. But then, even our local farmers have to use fuel to bring their produce to the market, or to a common site for the CSA customers.

    I guess my main point/question is: why isn't there more discussion of actual ways to reduce individual energy use? We could start with Al Gore and his house.....
  • Anothernonymous
    If you're implying that I'm doing nothing, I suggest you read through some of my past comments. However, I suspect you're right about why more people aren't pitching in.

    FWIW, I do not feel good about being on the right side of this debate (even though I am :-!). As I've said here before, I would give anything to make this problem go away. I have no vested interest whatsoever in human-caused global warming being real, and neither, I suspect, do most of the scientists who are doing the research. Your suggestion that they are choosing their data to support pre-conceived conclusions borders on slander.

    The vested interests belong entirely to those whose profits would be challenged by aggressive anti-warming policies. As is increasingly evident, they will do absolutely anything to confuse the issue.

    Those who fall for it, however, have only themselves to blame.
  • irodle
    I think it's more a political reasoning...the other side says it's true, so it must be NOT true... and vice versa. As I offered before, I think there's the matter of personal responsibilty. I think there's a fair number of people who think if the ship is indeed sinking, why should I work bailing when everyone around me is still partying and having fun? How is my meager contribution going to save the world if no one else pitches in? And, besides, I deserve to drive my gas guzzling SUV as much as so and so down the street. I also think it's really easy to go around crying "The sky is falling!", even in comments on forums like this, and do nothing, expecting someone else to make it all better, but feeling good because we're on the RIGHT side of the debate! Hmmm...
  • Anothernonymous
    All right, here's a summary of what the global warming skeptics have had to say so far.

    1) If there are credible, qualified scientists who disagree with the consensus on global warming, that proves it's controversial and it's premature to do anything.

    2) If there are no credible, qualified scientists who disagree with the consensus on global warming, that proves it's "cult science" and not worth taking seriously.

    In short, they've constructed a completely circular argument, with no way out. They will not be convinced, no matter what.

    Let me add two observations of my own:

    1) ZZZeke can no longer claim that he has not seen convincing scientific evidence of human causation of global warming - only that he has chosen to ignore it.

    2) (and I wish I could take credit for this) the resistance to global warming can be reduced to the following syllogism:

    The free market can solve all problems.
    The free market cannot solve global warming.
    Therefore, global warming is not a problem.

    This, I would submit, is the most logical explanation for the imperviousness to scientific reasoning among the anti-global warming crowd.
  • irodle
    If he were alive today, I think Richard Feynman may have something to say about how the research on global warming has been done and how much of the results are automatically explained in a way that "proves" the hypothesis with no reference to what else may be at play. The article about "cargo cult" science was long, but very interesting and so true. That Feynman has been dead for 21 years does not negate the wisdom he taught in the article. It seems to me that a lot of the research and conclusions have been based on relatively short-term data that has been collected and then processed through mathematical models to predict an outcome. Meteorologists do this today and how many times do we curse the weatherman for faulty predictions?...and that is only days in the future. Mathematical modeling is complicated in even the simplest of problems and with much data. The issue of global warming is hugely complicated. Are all of the vast numbers of complicating factors being considered...do we know them all? If we think we do, are we fooling ourselves? (If you want to know how we have fooled ourselves in what is important in nutrition, check out Michael Pollan's "In Defense of Food". Same thing applies here.) And, btw, I would like to see data that isn't out to prove anything. Anyone can present data to prove his/her cause or can use data to prove a pre-conceived erroneous conclusion. Not saying global warming isn't an issue, but I am a skeptic...and a trained scientist and mathematician.
  • Anothernonymous
    "As for the Skeptic page cited above, it lists several experts in climatology that dispute the "settled" research."

    No it doesn't.

    As for the other site referenced by ZZZeke, its level of integrity can be inferred from the fact that much of its argument is based on the suggestion that the noted physicist Richard Feynman, who has been dead for 21 years, would disagree with the current consensus about global warming.

    Who are you going to believe?
  • ZZZeke
    Here are some reasoned scientific studies, and some arguments that show inconsistencies and lack of scientific method in much of the "settled" research:

    http://xtronics.com/reference/globalwarming.htm

    As for the Skeptic page cited above, it lists several experts in climatology that dispute the "settled" research.
  • Anothernonymous
    If anyone is wondering whom to believe here, read this:

    http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-11-12

    Then read the article I cited.
  • ZZZeke
    From this [http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/Review_Article_HTML.php] compilation of peer reviewed studies:

    "Hydrocarbon use and atmospheric CO2 do not correlate with the observed temperatures. Solar activity correlates quite well. Correlation does not prove causality, but non-correlation proves non-causality. Human hydrocarbon use is not measurably warming the earth. Moreover, there is a robust theoretical and empirical model for solar warming and cooling of the Earth (8,19,49,50). The experimental data do not prove that solar activity is the only phenomenon responsible for substantial Earth temperature fluctuations, but they do show that human hydrocarbon use is not among those phenomena."
  • justintime
    Good point.
    I hadn't thought of that before.

    It does get a little boring, especially when the same people come back with the same arguments.
  • Anothernonymous
    BTW, the point of the above is that many more people live in the Northern hemisphere than in the Southern hemisphere. Therefore, a consistently demonstrated dependent relationship between the two shows strong evidence of human causation.
  • Anothernonymous
    One of the reasons I've stopped posting here regularly is that I simply got tired of saying the same things over and over again on thread after thread. Since this is vitally important, though, I'll repost a reference I gave back in June. There's been a lot of research since this article appeared 12 years ago, and it has only confirmed the conclusions:

    Robert K. Kaufmann and David I. Stern, "Evidence for human influence on climate from hemispheric temperature relations," Nature 388, 39-44 (3 July 1997). Here's the abstract:

    "Analysis of observational temperature records for the Northern and Southern hemispheres indicates a statistical relationship in which Northern Hemisphere temperature depends on temperature in the Southern Hemisphere. This pattern, which has strengthened over time, can be explained by the climatic effects of anthropogenic trace gases and tropospheric sulphate aerosols. A similar statistical pattern is produced by model simulations of the historical atmosphere."
  • irodle
    Sigh. Yes, I think the evidence shows that there is a warming of the earth's climate. How much is due to normal climate fluctuation and how much is due to human-caused carbon emissions is debatable. And I think a large part of the problem is that we don't have much reliable long term data. ( I would like to read some of the scientific research that BuckeyeDon refers to if he would give specific references. Otherwise, the comments about the scientific journals doesn't hold water.) While much horn blowing is done with regards to the climate change issue, I think we need to pay attention to the sibling issues of use of natural resources, waste, decrease in biodiversity and just plain old greed. We are rapidly depleting the available fossil fuels and with China and India joining the ranks of developed countries this will continue at an ever increasing rate. We are doing in our ecosystem with the industrial food chain which has diminished the soil quality while giving us more food but with less nutrition. We have clean municipal water (unlike much of the underdeveloped world) yet we buy bottled water, go figure, and dispose of the bottles in garbage dumps. (How much fossil fuel just went in the trash?) And we are watching species after species disappear from the earth for good. Considering what we can do to minimize our impact on the earth is necessary. Recognizing a "possible" human contribution to global warming is one thing but there is so much more we need to do. There's where the greed comes in...are you willing to give up some things yourself for the greater good. More often than not, the response to that question has been, why should I sacrifice if no one else does? Hmmm...
  • BuckeyeDon
    Actually, ZZZeke, the science IS pretty much settled, and one doesn't have to take Al Gore's word for it, either. Just go to the scientific journals where climate scientists report the results of their research. You'll find near consensus on the fact that global warming is occurring and that humans are partly responsible.

    The reason why there are loud voices trying to say AGW (anthropomorphic global warming) isn't happening is because vested interests in the status quo who think they have a lot to lose over this are paying some people a lot of money to question the science.
  • canucklehead
    that there is no history prior to the Buckeyes winning their last BCS
  • ZZZeke
    Fifty years ago the weather in central California was very similar to what it is in Portland, Oregon today. It's obvious that the climate is warming. It is not obvious what the cause of that warming is. We speak of average temperatures changing tenths of degrees over decades or centuries. Even two hundred years ago we could not measure such changes accurately, yet we confidently say it's X degrees warmer now on the average than 1000 years ago. I refuse to cheerlead for either side of the argument. I await convincing scientific evidence as to causation.
  • ZZZeke
    I don't believe that stereotyping people is helpful. People have valid reasons for accepting human activity as a cause of climate change, and valid reasons for not doing so. The science is far from settled, despite what Al Gore says. There are no smoking guns on either side. People are entitled to their opinions on the matter without being lumped in with others with whom they share only one position.
blog comments powered by Disqus
click here for comments tech support
advertise here
  • MOST VIEWED
  • MOST COMMENTED
  • MOST RECENT
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here


HOME | SUBSCRIBE | DONATE | TAKE ACTION | MAGAZINE  
SOJOMAIL | BLOGS | MEDIA | EVENTS | RESOURCES | ABOUT US  
Sojourners | 3333 14th Street NW, Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20010  
Phone 202.328.8842 | Fax 202.328.8757 | sojourners@sojo.net  
Unless otherwise noted, all material © Sojourners 2008