9 National Parks In Danger (PHOTOS)

In light of Ken Burns' documentary The National Parks: America's Best Idea and a recent report that lists "National Parks in Peril," we're featuring 9 parks that are in danger of destruction, mainly due to climate change. Increased snow melt, heavy rainfall and land development are all culprits threatening these gems. Check out these awe-inspiring photographs of national parks and vote on the most beautiful -- and the park most in need of saving.

Yellowstone National Park (Wyoming/Idaho/Montana)

Located primarily in Wyoming and extending to Idaho and Montana, Yellowstone is America's first national park.  Heavy rains, melting snow, and overcrowding is threatening Yellowstone's biodiversity.

comments(59)

Rate This Photo

(Current Rank: loading...)

Not My Favorite Stunning

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Now Make Your Own Top 5

And Share with Your Friends

Average rating: loading... out of 10

Most Beautiful Endangered Parks

loading...

 | Become a fan

Picked These as the Top 5 Slides in the Slideshow

Most Beautiful Endangered Parks

Users Who Voted on this Slide

loading...

loading...

HuffPost Community Top 5 Slides:

«»

 | Become a fan

Most Beautiful Endangered Parks

 

Get HuffPost Green On Facebook and Twitter!

Comments

[Mary Tabazan]

02:33 PM on 02/09/2010

You didn't mention forests, so many have been devastated by pine beetles, that's climate change pure and simple.

[JerryAguy]

04:57 PM on 01/16/2010

Oh yeah, at some point in the future Yellowstone is going to change, You'll know when most of the US has feet of volacnic dust it's buried in.

[HarlowGal1960]

03:07 PM on 01/16/2010

i am glad i bought my parks pass and will be seeing several of these gems this summer. hard to believe that climate change will succeed where jerry bruckheimer has failed -- bring down the statue of liberty

[realpolitic]

11:07 PM on 10/13/2009

Meanwhile like the glaciers in our National Parks, Arctic ice continues to decline...

"The ice cover remained thin, leaving the ice cover vulnerable to melt in coming summers. Scientists use satellites to measure ice age, a proxy for ice thickness. This year, younger (less than one year old), thinner ice, which is more vulnerable to melt, accounted for 49 percent of the ice cover at the end of summer. Second-year ice made up 32 percent, compared to 21 percent in 2007 and 9 percent in 2008 (Figure 5). Only 19 percent of the ice cover was over 2 years old, the least in the satellite record and far below the 1981-2000 average of 52 percent. Earlier this summer, NASA researcher Ron Kwok and colleagues from the University of Washington in Seattle published satellite data showing that ice thickness declined by 0.68 meters (2.2 feet) between 2004 and 2008."

http://nsidc.org/news/press/20091005_minimumpr.html

"The September rate of sea ice decline since 1979 has now increased to 11.2 percent per decade."

http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20091005_Figure3.png

[Richard2]

02:36 PM on 10/15/2009

So the Minimum Arctic sea ice extent increased by 23% over the past two years. So the amount of 2nd year ice increased this year compared to the year before. Both of these items support a conclusion that the Arctic sea ice is recovering. More total minimum sea ice extent. More second year ice. The current short term trend is for the sea ice to continue growing compared to 2007.

[realpolitic]

08:16 PM on 10/15/2009

R2, is using his misunderstanding of statistics to distort the picture of ice loss. No scientists use a comparison of this year to its minimum extent to make forecasts. Besides more important than minimum extent is that the Artic has more thin, vulnerable first year ice than ever and is vulnerable to summer melt. R2 is now just posturing about trends off the top of his head. It shows how unseriously he takes the topic and his cynicism.

Besides,

The September rate of sea ice decline since 1979 has now increased to 11.2 percent per decade."

http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20091005_Figure3.png

"Sea ice decline is in response to a warming trend we've seen in the Arctic for the past 30 years," said Meier. "We're heading towards an Arctic that won't have any summer sea ice in 20-30 years -- the most recent research indicates that the last time that happened was at least 5,500 years ago.""

http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-04/nasa-study-shows-thinning-arctic-sea-ice

[Richard2]

05:26 PM on 10/12/2009

The land designated as National Parks has had to face the earth's changing climate for millions of years, and has somehow survived. Yellowstone National Park even sits on the site of a huge volcanic eruption in ancient times. It is difficult to understand how this land is in any particular "danger" from climate change, any more than any other area of the earth's land surface. No doubt the kinds of vegetation in the parks, and the mix of animals, has changed many times over the past million years

National Parks face many real problems, from too many visitors, to encroaching nearby development, to well intentioned but mistaken National Park Service policies. I hope everyone does try to protect the park from real problems. Whether the climate gets cooler or warmer, the park land will hopefully still be there.

[realpolitic]

11:09 PM on 10/12/2009

The same familiar denier argument that the climate has always been changing. Man, the deniers have no imagination. Yes, it is not hard to see how a Glacier National park with no glaciers would damage the park. It is not hard to see how increased sudden rainfalls of greater intensity may cause rockslids and flooding in many National Parks putting people in danger. It is not even hard for deniers to see how the pine beetle eating away millions of acreas of pine forests would harm the forests when the winters are not severe enough to kill the beetles larvae any longer. Yet, it is going on all across Canada and our Western states.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v452/n7190/full/nature06777.html

http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0805/full/climate.2008.35.html

[DRaymond]

01:32 AM on 10/08/2009

Not sure if we are supposed to be voting for the most spectacular park or the one most in peril. Yellowstone is clearly the first and the Everglades the latter. The number and types of threats to the Everglades is downright depressing.

[Trickywoo]

10:19 PM on 10/07/2009

The park most in need of saving?
All of them.

[Richard2]

08:33 PM on 10/07/2009

The earth's temperature has been stable over the past decade, as noted by Andrew Revkin, and by satellite data from UAH. Therefore, which 9 National Parks were threatened by this lack of global warming over the past decade?

The answer: It appears that none of the National Parks were threatened by Global Warming over the past decade, as the decade didn't warm!

If the lack of warming continues through the second decade of the 21st Century, none of the National Parks will again be threatened by Global Warming during this period.

[realpolitic]

10:34 PM on 10/07/2009

Wow, so the temperature data that NASA uses and MetHadley uses is wrong, and by the way satellites show increasing warmth too. Then this story about National parks being in trouble is wrong too, although all the glaciers will soon be gone in Glacier National Park! It is amazing R2 can know so much and the scientiific community be so wrong and yet R2 has never even had a science class. R2 missed those commercials from years ago that "a mind is a terrible thing to waste!"

[Richard2]

10:29 AM on 10/08/2009

According to a recent report on the HP, there are still 25 glaciers in Glacier National Park.
Temperatures in the Park this weekend are expected to be about 25 degrees below normal for this time of year. It looks like those glaciers will survive this winter without any trouble.

[Richard2]

05:57 PM on 10/09/2009

Paul Hudson of the BBC agrees with Andrew Revkin of the New York Times, that the earth's warmest year was 1998. His article is "What Happened to Global Warming?"

http://newsbbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

Paul also asserts that the debate over global warming is not over. It may be hotting up.

[Philclock]

06:09 PM on 10/07/2009

Point of order:

How can I be "progressive" if I'm for "sustainability"?

I thought only trenchant conservatives by definition want "sustainability".

[PepeLepew]

05:20 PM on 10/07/2009

I think the biggest threat to many of these parks is people loving them to death. Too many cars, too many RVs.

[Ddayv825]

07:35 PM on 10/07/2009

Exactly, Can't wait till they can bring their guns along with them. Then the fun will really begin.

[Climate2Obama]

04:08 PM on 10/07/2009

Turn Copenhagen into Hopenhagen! Sign the UN Climate petition at http://hopenhagen.org

[NHBill]

03:23 PM on 10/07/2009

TJ Cole's Galactic Alignment rant sent me to Wikipedia. here is an excerpt:

An apocalyptic reading of Jenkins's hypothesis has that, when the galactic alignment occurs, it will somehow create a combined gravitational effect between the Sun and the supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy, (known as Sgr A*) creating havoc on Earth.[49] Apart from the fact noted above that the "galactic alignment" predicted by Jenkins already happened in 1998, the Sun's apparent path through the zodiac as seen from Earth does not take it near the true galactic center, but rather several degrees above it.[50] Even if this were not the case, Sgr A* is 30,000 light years from Earth, and would have to be more than 6 million times closer to cause any gravitational disruption to our Solar System.[51] The alignment described by Jenkins is only an apparent alignment caused by the Earth's wobble on its axis and has nothing to do with Earth's current location in the galaxy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactic_Alignment

[ResidualSelfImage]

12:54 PM on 10/07/2009

The US fully funds 800 US Foreign Parks spending 200 Billion Per Year!
Ooops i meant US Military Bases.

[yakmon]

12:48 PM on 10/07/2009

Hello?.... Yosemite, Mt Rainier, Kings Canyon, Olympic National park, etc....

Been to Mt. Rushmore? What do rock bands playing have to do with visiting a national monument?!!!

They are all in danger, not from what the article sites but Human Trampling. Ever visit a national park in summer? These are the most beautiful land tracts in America. They are over crowded and over run with mindless tourists who'd travel all that way to sit and watch their TV while "camped" there. Wonder where the wildlife is? Just spot the large crowds of cars parked on the side or middle of the road, gather round and see the wild beasts....

"All things change and adapt" Sounds like folks from Alaska that go to the garbage dump to see the bears. Sure wildlife adapts to polluted water and houses, ...or they die off. That's the kind of future you want to leave your grand kids? I got to see it so who cares about anyone else?

The "climate change" that threatens all our parks is the climate of mindless tourists...

[TJCole]

12:19 PM on 10/07/2009

Yellowtone is the greatest threat to our nation there is, when it blows 2/3rds of the United States will no longer exist for the most part...

They found prehistoric Rhinos buried under 50 foot of ash from a Yellowstone eruption 1,500 miles away from the Caldera or Hot Spot that is Yellowstone...!

Will this Super Volcano erupt due to the Galactic Alignment in 2012...

Yellowstone is a Volcano a Vent a Hot Spot as they also call it saving it is impossible the real question is who's gonna save us from it..!

When Yellowstone goes so does the United States...the blast reaches 70,000 feet not the plume the blast...!

[ProperGanda]

12:41 PM on 10/07/2009

i learned a lot from my favorite series on television, How The Earth Was Made
I believe there is a hot spot in that area

[TJCole]

12:46 PM on 10/07/2009

I'm glad you think so, because I know there's one, it's been a big part of study for me and the more I've learned the worse it is...!

It's had major eruptions 3 times we know of, there are 2 cycles one 70,000 years another the worst the 600,000 year cycle and we are overdue for a 600,000 year eruption..

[yakmon]

12:51 PM on 10/07/2009

AHHHHHHH!!!! Run for you lives.....

Dude, all the mountain peaks in the west are volcanoes, remember Mt. St. Helen?
Been to Hawaii?

I'm so frightened I'm going to stay in bed...

[snove77]

01:07 PM on 10/07/2009

Yellowstone is no 'ordinary' volcano. It is what is termed a super-volcano, with erputive potential many (dozens, hundreds, not sure) greater than any Mt. St. Helens, Krakatoa, or any of the more familiar volcanos. If (when?) Yellowstone blows up again the original poster is right- huge swaths of the US will become uninhabitable for many years. One only ridicules what one does not understand.

[TJCole]

01:15 PM on 10/07/2009

Dude the Rockies are the result of plate tectonics, none of them were Volcanoes..