One day I want to take the time and spend two weeks or so in one park only instead of touring around. As there are so many parks I haven't visited at all so far this may still take some time to achieve...
Just continue visiting as many of the parks I have not already visited as I can and enjoy the diversity and wonders found in them -- along with meeting and learning to appreciate all the good people who work in and visit them.
And to share as many of those experiences as possible with my grand daughters.
Two things have been on my list:
1) visit 50 National Parks (the capital N / capital P ones) by the end of the year I turn 50 (I'm very close)
2) live within a national park - made that goal as of last October (the town of Beverly Shores is located within the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore).
My husband and I have a bucket list of visiting all 400+ National Parks. So far, we've gotten about 120 of them in the past 7 years. Personally, I'm really excited about the Redwoods and the other parks in that area.
Only focusing on air temperature is also leaving out the other important global effect...ocean temps. and large bodies of water temps. It was interesting to look through the link that ec put there yesterday pertaining to the syllabus. I also enjoyed the comic strip at the end.
Justin, ec is a master at ignoring anything that doesn't match his preconceived notions.
This comment has been edited to remove a gratuitous remark. -- Ed.
For what it's worth, this just in from the University of Alabama:
Global Temperature Report: May 2013
Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.14 C per decade
May temperatures (preliminary)
Global composite temp.: +0.07 C (about 0.13 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for May.
A good teacher will present points from both sides and let you make an educated evaluation. So it is important to have workshops like this so our teachers have the latest info. I would not be so quick to say it is biased unless you have been to it or are already biased and not open to actual science.
it supports the basic science of heat/temperature I pointed you to
Of course it supports it given its liberal agenda. Nevertheless, it had to concede that temperatures hadn't risen in 15 years despite massive increases in CO2 emissions.
long-debunked East Anglia controversy?
Take another look at NY Times article; it supports the basic science of heat/temperature I pointed you to. As for this list of scientists, it would seem to support the 97/3 ratio of consensus/dissensus.
There are many indications that there may be substantial lag time between increased CO2 in the atmosphere and resultant air temperature increases. What alarms most scientists is not the increase in air temperature, but the undeniable increase in average water temperatures in oceans and large lakes.
EC, again, I disagree with your interpretation of the ppt. It casts no "blame," though it does, in a draft footnote, point to GHG levels produced by different parks in the system. And unless there's another hidden footnote I haven't seen, it doesn't encourage "government intervention" outside of leading by example. What's wrong with government agencies trying to reduce their GHG footprint?
David,
I agree. If the workshop is how to cope with change, no matter the cause, I have no problem with it. Unfortunately, the evidence suggests it is one of the typical, one-sided presentations that blames change on humans and encourages government intervention.
Teaching about Climate Change is important no matter whether your part of the 97% or 3% on the cause. The only constant on earth is change. Our Earth has gone through many climate changes, and teaching the young to consider how to best deal with the changes is important no matter if it is caused by us or mother nature.
As far as opponents to anthropogenic climate change, they would seem to warrant about as much attention as acquatic ape theorists would in a presention on the theory of evolution.
Your source is an article from 2010 looking at one particular survey. Since 2010 there have been numerous surveys, all with the same conclusion. The 97% number doesn't solely come from there.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract
In the outstanding program presented by ranger Kevin Poe at Bryce Canyon, there are arguments both for and against. He carefully explains that the science is not settled and then lays out a wide variety of options to be explored. It is an extremely well balanced presentation designed to simply make people who have opinions on both sides of the issue do some real thinking.
And best yet Kurt (and Lee), please explain if CO2 causes global warming, why have temperatures not risen over the last 16 years despite record levels of CO2 output?
No doubt, there are differing opinions about CC and AGW. All those opinions should be presented in our educational system because the science isn't settled.
Kurt - As I said, one of many. Rather than attacking the source, why don't you provide evidence that disputes any of the points?
Were the scientists polled not a selected list excluding fields that would have been relevant?
Were responses that were counted just 77 hand selected responses?
Were the questions not ambiguous?
Now, now everybody. One of the world's foremost self proclaimed experts on everything has just told us that climate change is bunk.
Who are we to question him and his infinite wisdom?
Quote:
"Do you know where that "97%" in "97% of scientists agree comes from? A graduate student sent out surveys to a selected 10000 "scientitsts" - mostly in the US. Some 300 responses were returned - many citing the poor structure of the survey. The student then hand selected 77 of those responses - after reveiwing them - and based his 97% on that sampling."
EC, I don't see any blame in the presentation placed on anthropogenic causes.
As for the world's scientists, it has been frequently stated by the IPCC and others that the majority of climate scientists agree on the causes of climate change. The last two links below provide a fairly good list of the scientific organizations (U.S. and international associations) that agree.
As the vast majority of world scientific opinion supports the issues surrounding climate change
Please show us the poll that solicited the opinion of the vast majority of world's scientists.
changing around the lakeshore
Beachdumb really needs to compare other national parks and tourist destinations over the course of 5 or 10 years with non-bias independent visitor surveys to get a gist of the impact (or lack of) NPS final ORV rule on Park visitation.
Huh? Of course you provided the spin. Its in this article YOU posted or did someone write this article for you? Its painfully obvious you just copied most of it from the SELC press release.
And you continue to spin, you can see visitation has yet to recover to the levels it was before the Audubon and NPS started this mess.
Beachdumb, if you've been a long-time reader, you might recall that back in 2010 I wrote about record turtle nesting at Cape Hatteras and the whims of population swings. The experts I talked with back then said yearly swings aren't unusual, so yes, I'm aware of cycles.
/2010/09/record-summer-turtle-nesting-cape-hatteras-national-seashore-spawnsdebate6809
THE WORLD IS ABOUT TO END!
I just agreed with a post by ec!
Have a great day, friend. I hope the hiking weather is as good in your territory this morning as it in mine.
I don't know enough about the CHNS issues to come down one way or the other regarding the management policy. However, I believe this legislation is yet another example of undue interference in NPS operations. Hire the folks to run the parks and let them run the parks.
Hatrasfevr, did those groups also cite Sen. Hagan's motivations for introducing the bill?
Also, visitation to Cape Hatteras National Seashore last year was 2.30 million, an increase of nearly 400,000 from 2011, when visitation was 1.96 million. If the Park Service is trying to remove folks from the national seashore, they don't seem to be doing a very good job...
Kurt .........
Sooner or later the American public will realize that the NPS is systematically removing all of us from public lands they manage. This effort at changing NPS plans at Cape Hatteras by the rank and file people of America will be much like the 'shot heard around the world'.
Gutz is right. Have you ever visited the approach to the Narrows trailhead over the ranch's land?
Anyone who would want to buy a house on any of that land should have their head examined. It is some of the ugliest landscape available and is located in the bottom of a rather narrow, flood prone canyon. And it's located in Kane County, Utah.
I think it means the Chamberlain ranch had some good lawyers. You get the crooked county commision to approve "ranchettes" so your property increases in value a thousand fold over night. Then you threaten to develope it. You then sell the develomental rights for millions but still get to keep your property.The tax-payers are left holding the developemental "bag".
All Recent Comments
Reader Participation Day: What Tops Your National Park Bucket List?
Climate Change Workshop For Teachers Coming To Apostle Islands National Lakeshore Next Month
Groups Criticize Senate Bill That Would Require Park Service To Reassess ORVs At Cape Hatteras National Seashore
Trust For Public Land Buys Land To Protect Access To Zion Narrows Trail At Zion National Park