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.
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
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.
That has happened with PCB, DDT, CRC and other fine chemichals in past.
Here's the problem with panic now, think later... it can cause FAR more harm. Case in point, DDT.
DDT single handedly killed maleria in the areas where it was used, due to it's very effective control of mosquitos. Thousands of lives saved. Then the panic kicked in.
First, the panic was that it was toxic, and killing people. Turns out not to be true at all.
Second panic was that it was destroying the eggs of birds in the areas that it was used. This turned out to be valid. Unfortunately not as valid as the reaction... banning it entirely.
What could have happened was using it in a far more targetted manner, rather than dumping it in large quantities without further consideration. Nope, had to pass laws, panic now, think later.
It's later, and maleria related deaths are on the rise again. Birds are fine though.
I honestly don't understand one thing. Why is it that in almost any other human endeavor problem solving involves actually figuring out what the problem truly is before taking corrective action. When it comes to how we get along with the environment around us we're all too easily lulled into the notion that problem definition can be waved for the greater good.
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.
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"
> 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."
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.
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.
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.