Slashdot Mirror
South American Glaciers Melting Quickly
blike writes "The BBC is reporting that south american glaciers are melting so fast they've contributed 0.04mm per year to the global sea level since 1975. In the past 8 years, the glaciers have been melting especially rapidly; contributing nearly .1mm to the sea level every year. Another BBC Article further discusses the issue and examins how the changes affect the people living in these areas."
Well, being that it will only go up 6.5 mm in my lifetime, and I live at an elevation of 692 feet (Minneapolis), I won't have beach-front property any time soon.
More than enough BS
I started to calcute how fast glaciers will increase 1m the sea level etc. but then I noticed that the same trend of 0.1mm yearly contributions will not stay if the temperature stays the same. The area of melting will slowly become smaller leading to smaller contributions.
Of course some people expect warmer times..
Of course, this is wrong on three counts:
The United States Senate (including its Democrats) have blocked the treaty, not George W Bush
The Kyoto Treaty increases greenhouse gas emissions (please check section about China)
There is no evidence of human impact on global warming anyway
He probably got mugged in New York, raped in San Francisco, or carjacked in L.A. There is something to be said for living in a city where the worst that can happen is frostbite.
Did anyone mention Kyoto or W?
Or did you just want to shout a cheer for your man in the White House?
- Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
1.6 million years before my home in colorado starts getting salty. I can live with that. And I'd got my hopes up thinking I'd soon be able to scuba dive in NY. Not enough global hair spray usage, I guess.
Should I be the first to point out that .1 mm is not a lot? Think about it. Stand on a beach, now raise the water .1mm. Are you still ok? If you were to watch the sea lives rise at this rate for a 100 years, you wouldn't even be able to tell the difference.
Global Warming is certainly an issue to worry about, it isn't an issue to freak out about. People seem to forget that no matter what happens, we are still humans, and humans are masters of changing their environment to fit their needs, and this great power only grows stronger as we advance. We certainly should take care, as not all humans are equal when it comes to the ability to change their environment. That said, the human race is never going to be wiped out because of gradual global climate change. Even under the absolutely worst case scenario it just means we have to live in enclosed habitats. So, relax and be proud that you are member of such a remarkable species.
Humans are mother natures dream come true and her ultimate creation. One day the sun is going to go super nova and everything on this planet is going to die. If earth is the only seed of life in the universe, then all the life in the universe will die. Humans, mother natures ultimate creation, is the one species that has the capacity to, if not entirely prevent this, then at the very least to spread the seed of life throughout the galaxy. Even when we are at our most destructive heights, in the end the planet is much better off for having us. We might be a minor global catastrophe as far as the environment is concerned, but we are just one of millions of such catastrophes that the environment has seen, and we are pocket change to much large cataclysms like comet impacts and high volcanic activity. In exchange for being a minor environmental disaster we staunchly defend life in general and hold the promise to spread it across the stars.
The minor catastrophe of human environmental destruction seems like a more then fair trade in exchange for us trying our damndest to spread life throughout the galaxy and protect this planet from real cataclysms that truly threaten life, like comet strikes and the sun going nova. I think if give then the choice of putting up with the minor harm we do in exchange for the protection to life we offer, or being left to the inevitable fate for all life on this planet without or assistance, mother nature personified would gladly embrace human existence and declare it the best thing to happen to this hunk or rock floating in the lifeless void.
"Or did you just want to shout a cheer for your man in the White House?"
How is this pro-Bush? Just pointing out that "our man" in the White House is irrelevant to a treaty which is irrelevant to the glaciers melting.
So this means the rest of Stardust should come to light post haste?
Not enough global hair spray usage, I guess.
You are getting your environmental wacky theories mixed. Hair spray destroys the ozone. It's the backyard barbecue that destroys the ice caps.
"1) Wha...?"
Yes. The Senate is in charge of approving/opposing treaties.
"Kyoto Treaty China may slightly increase its total CO2 "
"Slightly" heh. If the treaty was anything more than politics, it would have ALL countries reduce emmissions/output. Instead, we have something that has nothing to do with global warming and everything to do with an attempt to damage the US economy and boost China's economy. Even Russia is starting to see that the treaty is nothing more than an economic shell game.
"3) There is plenty of evidence - for example the correlation of warming with CO2 concentration over the past few centuries"
No, there is none. There is a lot more evidence that the trends have to do with natural cycles which have in the (pre-industrial) past produced a much greater variance. The current silly theory is man-made global warming. In the 1970s, the same sort of "scientists" were whining about human industry causing a new Ice Age. They have no idea what they are talking abot.
"and you will find few climatologists who do not believe humans have a significant effect on climate change."
Except none of them have any idea what the change might be. Cooling? Warming?
Read "Fallen Angels" by Niven and Pournelle that has an interesting theory that there is human-cased global warming, and its effect has been to stave off an ice age. Could be anything: no one has any idea, and the theories are faddish and fluctuate.
China, which already emits more than 12 percent of the world's human-caused CO2, is the second largest industrial emitter of greenhouse gases. As the 2nd worst, surely they must count as one of the "much worse polluters". Yet this misguided treaty alows them to increase emmissions.
The two worst countries: US and Canada: US must cut theirs, while it is OK for China to increase theirs. There is something smelly here, and it does not come from a smokestack.
"To suggest that this move towards a sharing of the control of emissions is somehow worse than no treaty
Since the reduction by industrial countries is more than offset by increases from the third world countries (the way the treaty is laid out), yes, it is worse than no treaty. Even making the baseless assumption that this will impact climate, this treaty allows for an increase in overall greenhouse gas emissions.
It doesn't even do what on the surface it is supposed to do. It does do what it was really designed to do: muck with the economies of the targetted countries.
"Poll: 75% of Palestinians support Haifa restaurant attack:"
There are shockingly high percentages when "Palestinians" have been asked other questions: an overwhelming majority favor such things as indiscriminate killing of Israeli civilians, denying that the Holocaust occured but if it did it was for good reason, and they deny the Israelis the right to exist (i.e: they are very pro-genocide).
This is not a few extremists: consistently, the overwhelming majority of "Palestinians" favor exterminating the people of the neighboring country.
It would be very irresponsible at this time for the world to allow such an overwhelmingly evil and hateful nation to come into being.
So, it is supposed to cut greenhouse emissions. Instead, it allows to increase them. It is set up in an especially unfair fashion to boost the emissions of some countries and cut emissions of others (full aware of the economic damage this causes).
If it is anything but politics targeting certain countries, change it so that all countries are treated the same in it.
It is not a problem, since the cause is not man-made. We can't do anything with about it unless we do some cosmic engineering thing like push the earth from the Sun.
If you want something done about it quickly, we can have a nuclear war with Russia and invoke nuclear winter. That will save the glaciers.
Otherwise, it's nature. Natural climate cycles.
"It's called a "concession." "
which basically puts the lie to the idea that this is about reducing greenhouse gases.
"You see, there was once a time when people believed that it was a good idea to negotiate problems and try to resolve differences peacefully"
And then Neville Chamberlain lost his office. your point? Or are you referring to the time Clinton got fed up with Saddam Hussein and poured bombs on Iraq?
Hmmm. Perhaps you reference to "nuke" is based on the only use of nukes in war in history. I guess you are proposing that Imperial Japan was wanting "peaceful negotiation" (Pearl Harbor never happened, mate?)
"The irony of having someone who doesn't know the difference between "then" and "than""
You are the same one who entitled a comment "Ranitng in repsonse to nobody". Then you go ahead and base a major part of your argument against another on that other person not spelling than/then correctly.
I hope you're "repsonse" to Shihar has an alopogy!
("Ranitng in repsonse to nobody".... I don't think even W can spell this badly!)
"Maybe they are maybe they aren't, but that's beside the point."
No, the facts ARE the point. Someone who is ranitng about shrills and shubs probably can't understand that.
By the way, Rocket Red just made a comment where a main point of the argument was that his opponent spelled then/than wrong.
This is the same Rocket Red who at the same time entitled one of his own comments "Ranitng in repsonse to nobody"
This prety much makse him fiar game in the "laugh at the spelling nazi" depatrment. As long as we quickly first shoot down his illogic which is based on hate for a man he can't even get the name of correctly.
For the record: I have seen many blame the US not being in Kyoto Treaty on President Bush. The truth is that the Senate voted against it in 1997.
"Perhaps this is our challenge -- to grow up.
Isn't it about time?"
At least we can leave the shrills, shubs, and Dubai insults in the playground if we "grow up".
Then you go ahead and base a major part of your argument against another on that other person not spelling than/then correctly.
First of all, that was in no way a major part of my argument. You're really reaching on that one. Secondly, the then/than issue is a grammar error that indicates a basic misunderstanding of the language rather than a spelling error which is common and understandable. Thirdly, "entitled" is entirely the wrong word to use for what you meant. And, finally, "Ranitng" was a simple fat-finger typo rather than the hypocrisy you would like to make it out to be. Grow up.
- Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
They were specifically talking about South American glaciers. Nearly everybody who has replied has taken it to mean that the ocean is only rising .1 mm a year. No, that's ONLY the contribution from South American glaciers to the much larger rise in the ocean levels from lots of other stuff melting too (ice caps).
The spelling flame was not a serious argument.
"that was in no way a major part of my argument"
You devoted about 1/5 of your response to it.
"Secondly, the then/than issue is a grammar error"
No, it is mispelling. I fat-finger that one as well.
"And, finally, "Ranitng" was a simple fat-finger typo rather than the hypocrisy "
So your fat-finger blunders are off-limits, while someone's "than vs then" fat-finger blunder is part of serious debate?
To repeat: the spelling flame is not a serious argument. No matter how you try to justify it in your "repsonse".
He can't get laid. No girl will even look at him anymore. The reason has something to do with "Shrub's" economic policy.
"Of course! George W did it for the environment's sake only"
Where did I say that? As I elaborated later, the treaty was killed as far as the US was concerned in 1997 by the Senate. Bush had nothing to do with it.
He didn't do it for the environment, or against the environment. He didn't do it, period: he was not in Washington until a few years later.
"What a caring, nice guy he is."
Let the whining begin, indeed. Emotions are running high from you "at Bush" concerning something that happened before he got to town.
The melting of glaciers is only a part of the effect of(supposed) global warming and the rise of the sea level is fairly unimportant when compared to related issues of fresh water entering the worlds oceans. Slalinty levels (might)control the migration and breeding grounds of the first part of the oceans food chain, plankton, krill. If X millions of tons of (more) fresh water enter say an area of 1000 sq miles the effect can be dramatic. I do not think we know the full story of what can happen but something will (happen). It gets to a pretty important thing in the life of the human race, Food, from the ocean in this case. The global warming issue on the land comes down to rain, too much or too little, encroaching deserts and how long it will take to adapt and the life style that will be the result. The melting glaciers (and they are) is only part of a sign that it is not too late to do something becausse we may survive but we may not be too happy with the results and we all know what happens when the human race is not happy
I eat my grapes at room temperature, cuz the cold ones hurt my teeth
In geologic terms, glacier melting really doesn't make a huge impact on sea level rise or fall, there won't be a water world cuz of the glaciers melting, they are however, important to the water cycle, far more important than miami being the next Atlantis. So although it's not really proven the "Global Warming" theory is absolutely correct, and the change is slight, we best tread carefully, we honestly dun know what we kind of effect we can have, almost 90% of life on earth went extinct millions of years ago because a little bacteria decided to suck in all the CO2 and pump out 02 (poisonous to most life at that time), so whether or not we should run for the hills cuz of this, is really a moot point, we just need to be cautious, and learn from our planet's past.
You win battles by knowing the enemy's timing, and using a timing which the enemy does not expect. Miyamoto Musashi
You set up a nice strawman, but nobody is worried about global warming because of its potential to destroy the human race. They are worried about global warming because of the profound shocks to the living patterns, economics and politics of enormous swathes of the world's habitable surface.
Squeeze people out of the coastal cities and you have war, mass migration, famine and economic collapse to contend with. And you lot in the US will be as vulnerable as everyone else.
Since you love facts so much and sig (heil) to the neocon party line, here are some facts for you.
You mean it's not
?"Provided by the management for your protection."
What a relief!