NASA Photo of Muir Glacier: “Now you See It (1941); Now You Don’t (2004)”

If you look really close in the 2004 image, you can see the human fingerprint…but don’t strain your eyes.

735003205

About these ads

22 responses to “NASA Photo of Muir Glacier: “Now you See It (1941); Now You Don’t (2004)”

  1. Not even the same view point. The shot with the ice is almost on top of that chokepoint.

  2. Glaciers form and glaciers fade. I’m sitting where one of the great ice sheets lay some 10,000 years ago, and probably several times before that. A great glacier may yet lie here again, although I expect I’ll have enough time to move or die before that.

  3. Not only is the photo taken from a different view but even if it was at the same place, this only proves that we are in an interglacial period. If 500 years from now there is more ice by the same rationale we could blame something that humans were doing to cool the planet.

  4. Oh for gods sake, what a bunch of crap. Let’s see a couple of thousand other glaciers around the world during the same period. Some will have shrunk and some will have grown. Big deal. Most changes in glaciers aren’t even temperature driven.

  5. It seems that a new paper concluding that Antarctic has been adding ice fro 150 years should be of some relevance:

    http://www.thegwpf.org/paper-antarctica-gaining-surface-ice-mass-150-years/

  6. The ‘now you don’t’ part clearly has a glacier. It’s either a typo or a photoshop fail.

    • The pictures are real, though as has been mentioned, the first picture appears to be much lower and to the front and left, greatly exaggerating the change. The point is how far it has receeded, not that it no longer exists

  7. I still don’t know why having land covered with ice is desirable.

  8. Ok this proves global warming, but does it prove it is related to carbondioxide emissions?

    • Howdy, LK
      This does not prove global warming. It proves that one glacier is in retreat, which may well be due to global warming. Glaciers change in response to several forcings; temp is one and precip is another.

  9. I have lived in Laredo Texas for 20 plus years and have only seen ice hear two times……Must be global warming.

  10. Steve, how are “climatedeniers” explaining this one? Can you debunk this?

    • The “climatedeniers” are those folks who seem to believe that the climate should be static and unchanging, that some past climate is better than now and that they can control the climate.

    • Lasse, If you could contront actual people instead of the scarecrows you have built, you would know that the question concerning warming is mostly in attribution. As we are in a warming period following the Little Ice Age in the middle of a long term interglacial, a retreating glacier is to be expected. Also, as has been pointed out, glacier growth depends greatly on precipitation, and is nowhere near a direct function of temperature.

  11. Notice that the “after” picture is dated 2004 (!). Nine years ago! I spent a few minutes on da net looking for a more recent picture. I could not find one. I smell a rat.

    BTW, my original point. Look at this larger version of the pix:

    http://thisisnotsustainable.com/post/23733529331/the-muir-glacier-in-alaska

    Notice in the 2004 pic that there is great green growth in the foreground, while the land is barren in the first. Why would you prefer barren land ?!?!?

  12. One other problem we have is that we can only look at glacier growth/decline over a very short time period (meteorologically speaking).
    The indigenous people (who we are always being told were superior to us) did not leave any records showing how things were in their time. So we are stuck with phony NASA pictures and “computer models.”

  13. The glaciers started melting 20,000 years ago. Back then the ice was 2 miles thick in Quebec. The Matterhorn (14,690 ft) high) was shaped at the very top by ice. These things take time. It is still happening. CO2 is not part of the equation.

  14. http://soundwaves.usgs.gov/2008/12/research.html

    Really, there are realistic pictures, that weren’t skewed and changed to be considered “Junk Science”. The reason for the apparent height change… an actual height change in ice. It lowered 800 feet, so yea, it doesn’t look the same perspective wise. It’s like you make an effort to be misinformed.

    To say “ice has been melting for 20,000 years” is a useless statement filled with no content or insight. That’s like saying that our ever growing population isn’t a problem because “we’ve been growing in population for millions of years” its the expediency at which it grows (or depletes in the case of ice) that is relevant.

  15. God, you deniers are dumb.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s