Slashdot Mirror
Mountain Moisture Melting
felis_panthera writes "Yahoo! News has a Full Coverage story on how global warming is causing the ice cap atop Mt. Kilimanjaro to melt. It goes on to say that it has shrunk by 80% in the last century, and will probably be completely gone in another two decades. The ice cap is believed to have formed some eleven millenia ago. Some African rivers have already seen a decrease in volume, and it is feared that the loss of the ice cap will also cause a drop off in tourism."
Interesting that they seem more worried about the percieved loss in tourism as opposed the potential for climatic devestation in the region if the rivers begin to run low/dry...
Still #1 -- Lonely Gay Geek
Actually, it was the lava scene out of Ice Age which they shot on location which wiped out most of the ice-cap. - end sarcasm.
Even if the world is 'warming up', the fact is that it's done this in the past and it will do it again in the future. I'm personally more concerned about a switch in the earth's magnetic poles, that's really going to upset my monitors!
However, this also is no reason to be complacent about pumping CO2 (and other such byproducts) into the atmosphere without care. We should still continue to make efforts to reduce our consumption of the resources on this planet.
After damage is done (or not done) we can evaluate what was supposed to be done. That has happened with PCB, DDT, CRC and other fine chemichals in past. Why not with CO2.
Beleive in global warming or not, I still think it would be better to reduce usage of something that is widely suspected to be the cause of global warming. Once this theory is proven wrong feel free to drive with SUVs as much as you like.
Thank you.
I think the global warming effect is still underestimated. Tourism will be our (or our children) least problem.
There is no question of "if" this will be happening but only "when". We may still affect duration and intensity, but I have only little hope.
Yours, Martin
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Earth just emerging from an ice age? If so, that would explain the raise in the global temperatures.
Even if people are to blame, gasoline engines will be gone in roughly 40- 50 years (oil supplies), and that's roughly responsible for about 40% of the pollution in the US ( world may be different %).
The Sahara is expanding as well, but that is more to bad farming, etc. Based on that example , I think that that there may be other factors involved besides global warming, but i don't think there is anything good that comes from making so much pollution.
In case you are wondering why the tourism loss is bad, just think that you will have a lot of desperate people with guns.
to say that Global Warming has nothing to do with the Icecap on Kilamanjaro melting. Then again, it's also a little hasty to say that a localized 80% reduction in the Icecap of a mountain in Africa is caused ONLY by global warming, when there are no other examples globally of warming on this scale.
Although it's tempting to point a finger and yell about global warming, I would opt for some actual scientific study of the situation. For example, Mt. Kilamanjaro is in Tanzania... not exactly your most industrialized country... and is surrounded by nations like Mozambique, DR of Congo, Zambia, Uganda, and Kenya. Only one of those nations has any significant industry to speak of (Kenya). So where are all of these greenhouse gases coming from to melt Mt. Kilimanjaro's ice cap? The greenhouse gases certaintly aren't more concentrated there than in the more industrialized areas of the world.
I'm not saying this problem is not due to global warming, however... I'm merely saying that there needs to be more serious scientific study on the issue.
- Proofs of Sturgeon's Law Delivered Daily -
This is not to say that I don't think global warming is real. I've seen enough other proof to believe that it's real. It's just that this specific data on Kilmanjaro (at least, what I've seen so far) doesn't seem to say anything more than that the Killmanjaro glaciers are shrinking. I don't have enough data to tell if this shrinkage pattern is a good bad or neutral indicator.
OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
Could some rabid conservative please post the party line that global warming is the only thing holding off another ice age?
Okay, I'll bite. Not really a hard line conservative, but certainly far enough over on the right to take this one on.
First off, anyone claiming that global warming is going to hold off an ice age couldn't possibly be bright enough to hold any kind of political position. Furthermore, if we're just talking about straight party line, that is NOT the position conservatives take on the matter.
The argument from the right is that humans just aren't capable of causing the massive changes being claimed. If warming is happening, the causes are most likely due to cyclical changes our environment goes through. Burn what ya like, it won't make a lick of difference.
Of course, over on the left we're all doomed unless nobody ever burns anything ever again. Every match that's struck or deoderant sprayed is going to lift the average temperature to the 100's of degrees.
Personally, I'm strongly of the opinion that both of these viewpoints are harmful. Over on the right there seems to be a lack of consideration for other very localized harm burning nasty stuff can cause. As a lifelong inhabitant of Los Angeles I've seen this first hand.
The view on the left is just as harmful though. First, the non-stop claims about so many different dangers goes a long way to desensitizing the populace, as well as policy makers. The enviromentalists are a political movement, not a scientific body. Need to do something about the problem NOW, regardless if we really understand the problem or not.
When it comes right down to it, I don't believe we have conclusively proven two very key points. Is the global temperature really increasing? That seems to depend on which group of scientists looking at which data, then filtered through a LOT of political interests.
The second point; if it is warming, what exactly is causing it? The right claims not us humans, the left claims they've got it all figured out. In truth, we really don't know what in the heck is going on. It may very well be a combination of cyclical changes along with human factors. Meterology is a damn complex science, and one we're still trying to figure out.
Okay, so I probably wouldn't get invited to too many conservative parties with this post. I suppose calling for "rabid conservatives" gets a pass to the "kneejerk liberal" get togethers though.
The line must be drawn here. This far. No further.
"The other bad thing about tourists on Kilimanjaro is all the trash they leave behind. People are simply not capable of cleaning up after themselves. People should not be allowed to climb such a wonderful mountain if they are not going to use it responsibly. Read the rest here."
It is really disgusting to see these "3xtr3m3" travellers go to exiting Kilimanjaro trips - in colonnial spirit, latest hightech equipment, a few slaves carrying everything and enjoying gourmet dinners while on the way to top. I mean there is nothing wrong if you respect the environment and don't throw trash around. But the latest megatrend that every IT manager has to climb Kilimanjaro to be something is rather amusing in it's sickness.
>The argument from the right is that humans just aren't capable of causing the massive changes being claimed.
Actually, up till bout 1 year ago, the right denied that global warming was happening.
>If warming is happening, the causes are most likely due to cyclical changes our environment goes through. Burn what ya like, it won't make a lick of difference.
And now that is the new party line. It totally ignores any common sense and real science or math (but hey, falwell and the rest of the right have always ignored truth - it is amazing that they accept that the earth orbits the sun). Mankind is capable of doing long lasting damage and far more than is admitted. Think Ozone and chloroflourocarbons. Think DDT. Think lead, asbestos, etc. Your argument is the same that was used then as now.
Personally, though, I don't care. We have gone through the cheap energy and are starting now on increasingly expensive energy. This will drive alternatives into place.
Being the Libertarian that I am, I can wait for the markets to balance so that we can get past the governmental interference.
If African rivers are seeing a decrease in volume then the ice must be melting at a reduced rate. Perhaps there is less snow being deposited atop the mountain but at least question the claims with a critical eye.
I would like to underscore your last point. I am tired of people throwing around examples and conjectures on the "natural" variation in planet-wide temperatures as a reason to not take a hard look at our own role. (Not saying anything about your comments, BTW, dcuny).
OK, the earth has already been through some dramatic ups and downs in the past: the earth will survive, obviously. But will there always be room for us? Our environment is not a simple linear system; our human activities have an impact far beyond the human scale.
Personally, I think our "minor" inputs (greenhouse gases, extinctions, deforestatrion, etc.) could easily lead to a global weather system that reorganizes itself into a new "stable" state that we may not like at all... one in which humanity has to make some pretty big changes to its lifestyle choices.
Many people seem to use ignorance as a shield, choosing to avoid grappling with unpleasant problems. So, the question isn't "what should I do?", because that is more of a long conversation and lifetime commitment to change. The real question is: "do I care?"
If the answer is "not really", don't worry: you have lots of company.
I've got a bad attitude and karma to burn. Go ahead. Mod me down.
Oh, the earth will most certainly survive. At least some cockroaches, for sure. But certainly a lot more.
>Having studied the bio sciences...
Then you most certainly came across differential equations? (Hunter/Gatherer comes to mind)
> (which the ocean should buffer quite nicely, considering it covers 75% of the earth's surface)
The problem is, that blue algea and corals are highly suspectible to changes in temperature.
(Hint: they don't thrive on rising temperature)
> I'm not certain global warming has been proven to the bulk of the scientific community's satisfaction.
The majority of climatologists consider human induced global warming a fact (that's a Saddam Hussein election-like majority, not a more than 50% majority)
The amount of increase and influence is debated about.
>[...] you cannot extrapolate from a single mountain [...] though I'm sure global warming proponents will try.
Every time, I've heard a climatologist speaking about such a phenomenom (polar glaciers, Alpen glaciers, El Niño, large storms, floodings and droughts) , he says almost the same, something along the line: "It's a single incident, and, standing alone, it proves nothing. And saying, this is a prove for global warming is nonesense. But as a part of a larger statistic, it leads us to the consequence, that there is a global warming.
> [...] !EARTHFIRST!" communique about the plant's imminent demise... feh. Earth is tougher than we are [...]
Those people aren't as altruistic as you may think. They are fearing the planet's demise, but it's a demise from our perspective.
How will the planet react towards a sudden climatic change? Well, like it ever reacted, a "reboot". Will this make life extinct, most certainly not. But what about us humans?
The more complicated a system, the more likey it will fail. And human society is fairly complicated.
How many people you know are actually working for the survival of the human-kind? Not directly or indirectly for an advancement of society, but only for actual survival?
Certainly, fairly few.
We've achieved and rely on a highly efficient system, which provides us with all the neccessities for survival and allows us to maintain us a lot of "unnecessary" things, in other words a culture.
We cannot maintain such efficiency under a fast changing climate. (The marches of Sibiria won't become fertile, just because it becomes warmer. Still the deserts become larger)
Even in the current situation the global society isn't as stable as one liked it to be.
The G7 are building walls to protect their wealth from the poorer nations. In case of the US, you can even take it literally (Mexican border).
Will those walls previal in case of an even increased discrepancy between the wealthy and the poor?
"Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
The ice cap is disappearing steadily since 1900. How can we blame global warming if the process didn't show any acceleration in the last half of the 20th Century?
And half of the population is dumber that the rest
Ignorance is the privilege of the unkowing ones. Sorrow's the burden of the intelligent people.
> So, the question isn't "what should I do?"
It is. But is the answer "I should go seek cover in cave"?
Most certainly not. But neither should it be "I can't do anything about it anyway." or "What I do doesn't matter anyway".
One isn't required to change ones whole lifestyle (well, actually it is, but one can't expect it)
It's the little things that count.
Don't drive with your car to get somewhere just around the corner. It's better for your health anyway (Unless you're in Alaska in winter, that is)
In winter it's cold, and summer hot. Try to adapt yourself, not your surroundings. (That means, you don't have to be able to run around in shorts in winter, not that you've to sit freezing under 6 blankets)
Isolate your house. When the snow on your roof is melting and it is not spring something went wrong.
Turn of the electronics, you don't use. That includes light. (Is there a light, when no one sees it?)
Just be aware of it and use your common sense.
And often, economics and ecology work just fine together.
My philosophy: Try at least to be a little bit better than the people around you.
"Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
> Some African rivers have already seen a decrease
> in volume...
Uhm. If the ice cap is in the process of melting, those rivers should be seeing an INCREASE in volume. The fact that the volume is going down indicates either:
(1) That ice cap has been melting for a LONG time, and is only now running out, putting a crack in the theory that global warming has recently become significant, or
(2) The rivers are decreasing in volume for some other reason, most likely drought; that drought might also be responsible for the decrease in the size of the ice cap, since melt would not be replenished as quickly. The drought is definitely a change in climate, but blaming it on "global warming" is about as unscientific as the argument, "ice melts because things get hotter. Must be global warming."
Does this make sense to anyone else?
If this were an accurate description of how climatologists and other scientists interested in global climate change work, sure.
But of course it's not at all how scientists work. If you mistrust the press, dig into the scientists. Read up on what the National Academy of Science has to say about it, for instance.
I am a fellow conservative, let me throw out a story...
My dad used to warn me about the dangers of equating an effect with a cause, as evidenced by...
"Major League Baseball causes snow to melt"
Because:
1. I notice that snow melts in the spring
2. I notice that baseball starts in the spring.
"The Earth is getting warmer, due to a variety of pollutants."
Because:
1. The Earth has been getting warmer for more than 100+ years
2. Pollutants have been used in force for 100+ years
The Earth naturally warms and cools, though it would be irresponsible to completely ignore the issue. We also need environmentalists to treat this as a science and not a religion.
The EPA actually considered (albeit breifly) making backyard barbeques illegal because of the pollution associated with it.
--Joey
To hear ecowackjobs tell it you'd assume there were humans around polluting 12,000 years ago and they all suddenly died off so that the ice cap could form. Jesus, people, the Earth changes all the time, sometimes wetter and sometimes drier, sometimes warmer and sometimes cooler, and sometimes in different ways in different places at the same time.
I am not a Republican. I do not drive a SUV. I am, however, a thinking man not prone to wild-eyed fanaticism over things I cannot claim to understand.
Research dollars, of course.
Anti-global warming research (what little there is, or what little is published) is often funded by industry.
The pro-global warming research that usually happens in environmental groups and universities is funded, directly or indirectly, by the government. If everyone were to agree that global warming was not a problem those research dollars would dry up.
Let's talk about the real issues of global warming, let's discuss the fact. But be under no illusion that those that promote global warming are any "purer" or less financially motivated than "industry pawns" who say that global warming isn't happy. There's money in it for both sides.
OK: so we've proven, conclusively that we can make massive changes in the local ecology. The fact that we can undeniably do it on a local scale adds credence to the idea that we can do the same on a global scale, rather than taking away.
The view on the left is just as harmful though. First, the non-stop claims about so many different dangers goes a long way to desensitizing the populace, as well as policy makers. The enviromentalists are a political movement, not a scientific body. Need to do something about the problem NOW, regardless if we really understand the problem or not.
This isn't a left problem. It's a press problem and a math problem. People don't understand mathematics and statistics. The press plays on this in their sensationalism. Both the right and the left play off of this. As an example: Smoking kills 7000 people a week. This is more than twice what was killed on Sept. 11. Unfortunately someone dieing of cancer or in a smoking related fire is very hard to get sensational film on...
The problem with global warning -- like with smoking -- is that the obvious response time is not instantaneous. A kid who starts smoking in 2000 isn't likely to die of cancer for at least 20 years -- the smoking/cancer ratio also isn't 1-1. This has allowed the Tobacco companies to hide behind plausable deniablility for decades. (that and the fact that some publishers are scared of losing the very substantial and consistent income that they get from those companies, which can leave them careful about pushing the issue)
Similarly, with global warming, Driving your car 2 blocks to the corner store doesn't suddenly cause a drought. This is rather like a slow stream of water cutting through a rock. The results aren't obvious on the first day -- or even the first decade -- but we're no longer questioning whether it happens.
When it comes right down to it, I don't believe we have conclusively proven two very key points. Is the global temperature really increasing? That seems to depend on which group of scientists looking at which data, then filtered through a LOT of political interests.
GLobal warming was considered an interesting and plausable -- but unproven -- theory in the early '70s. It had, however, passed the first scientific milestone of scientific plausability. It had proven consistent with past observations and generally accepted rules. The second step was to predict certain results that hadn't been observed so far. and wouldn't happen if the theory was wrong.
This is where we run into the long response cycle of Global warming: It took years and decades to collect evidence for/against the theory of global warming, but the proponderance of evidence so far has been strongly for that global warming is really happaning. The question is no longer 'if'. It is now a question of what will be the effects and what can/should we do about it.
Like water on the stone where there is no 'the' droplet which you can not drop on the stone to prevent the wearing, Driving to the store or using hairspray does make a difference. There is that final droplet the dropping of which will cause the two halves of the rock to split apart -- but by that time it's too late to save the rock. Similarly, with global warning, by the time the results are catastrophic, it will be too late for us to reverse the process.
OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
Seems the local Indian name for the area translates to "Valley of the Smokes". The shape of the land and the wind patterns over much of the year trap airborne pollution - so badly that a single campfire would smoke it up for a day or more.
:)
Hmm, I'd always heard it was the "Valley of the Haze", or some such thing. Not debating the point, just what I had thought it was. Even without campfires the area would be hazy on a regular basis just due to the sea air getting trapped.
Another intereresting bit of history has to do with when the term "smog" was first coined. The LA Times used to sell or give out these hard bound coffee table books with front pages going back to the late 1800's, which is where I got this.
As the US was ramping up to deal with the coming war with Japan, the factories in the area seriously ramped up production. With no controls at all on these things you had tons of smoke going up, but not out.
In a rather sudden way, the morning sky had turned orange. Residents were thinking that they were being gassed by the Japanese. Pearl had just been attacked after all, so the paranoia on the west coast was high. One of the reporters for the Times said something to the effect that it looked like a combination of "smoke" and "fog".
I honestly don't recall if the reporter actually stated "smog", but the phrase caught on.
It's a testimony to US automobile technology (even if driven by legislation) that so many cars can now operate in that valley without photochemical smog being so thick that the light is blocked.
Cars were a factor, but not the true cause. It takes a combination of controls on both vehicles and industry to keep things under control here. Just from what I've seen in my 30 some odd years residing here, things have gotten a LOT better.
By the way: DON'T call them "Native Americans". It annoys them.
Sounds like I'd best stick with "Hey you!" and leave it at that.
Personally, I have zero use for hyphenated Americans of any sort. It's divisive and demeaning. A citizen of this nation is an "American".
The line must be drawn here. This far. No further.
All your examples are local or regional.
For the last 420,000 years, atmospheric CO2 concentration has remained in a semistable equilibrium, between 180 and 280 ppm. Since 1750 the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has risen to 367 ppm. That's a global change.
If we wanted to raise or lower sea level by a meter, could we do it? Can we stop a hurricane from destroying Lousiana, or cause some flooding to occur in northwestern Mexico that needs it? No.
I guess you're saying the planet can't be getting hotter because we can't steer hurricanes around? Our lack of fine grained control over weather events doesn't somehow imply that we have no influence over climate in general.
Letxa:
You may have a point... but we seem to be ignoring one important detail:
The top if Mt. Kilimanjaro is freaking melting.
Wow... many creationists say exactly the same thing about evolutionary research. It really wouldn't surprise me if flat-earthers, crystal freaks and the rest of the psuedo-scientific world to the same.
The global warming skeptics really do chose some bad company for themselves.
Warning: Some ideologies on the Net are smaller than they appear.
Fortunally, the link between a warming earth and pollutants is a lot more complex than your little strawman.
Perhaps had you added "3. We know that certain pollutants cause warming", then you would have had a more informative post.
Your comment about environmentalists treating global warming as religion and not science, is very ironic given that the vast majority of climatic scientists support the theory behind human induced global warming.
Warning: Some ideologies on the Net are smaller than they appear.
We are rapidly approaching a time when most cars will be coming out with zero or near-zero emissions systems. Some are already out now.
Unfortunately cars still emit CO2 (and H2O), unless Congress Suspends the laws of physics.
MSN 8: Now Microsoft even has bugs in their ad campaigns.
There was an interview on NPR the other day about this very thing, and the man they were talking to was a scientist who studies mountain glaciers (I believe; I don't remember his name or precisely what he did).
First of all, he did say that this is something that has happened before, and, taking only this as evidence, it would seem to be simply a natural cyclical process.
However, he also said that this is not the only place this is happening. No, that doesn't mean the polar icecaps are melting, but other mountain glaciers all over the world are, little by little, getting smaller. This, to him (a scientist who studies exactly the things that are the best indicators of global warming), says incontrovertibly that global warming is real and is beginning to have serious effects.
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.