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..
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.
So this means the rest of Stardust should come to light post haste?
OK, I'll bite.
1) Wha...?
2) The Kyoto Treaty does nothing. Treaties do nothing. Treaties are merely agreements by countries to do something or (as in this case) not do something. Under the Kyoto Treaty China may slightly increase its total CO2 output in a controlled manner whilst countries which are much worse polluters reduce theirs. To suggest that this move towards a sharing of the control of emissions is somehow worse than no treaty, i.e. complete unrestraint is either blatant trolling or stupidity so vast I can barely believe the AC has the intelligence to turn their computer on.
3) There is plenty of evidence - for example the correlation of warming with CO2 concentration over the past few centuries. The theory has not been proved true beyond all reasonable doubt but there is a lack of other models to explain the data and you will find few climatologists who do not believe humans have a significant effect on climate change.
China...is the second largest industrial emitter of greenhouse gases.
The two worst countries: US and Canada...
There is something smelly here...
You can say that again. Who is the second largest emitter? China, the US, or Canada?
- Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
THIS WAS POSTED BY AN AC above. People need to see this, so I am posting this at +2.
Let the whining begin. Someone will say it is because George W Bush stopped the Kyoto treaty which would have reduced greenhouse gases and prevented this.
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
But per capita the US produces about 5.5 metric tons of CO2 carbon, by far the world's largest. The figure for China on the other hand is considerably less than 1. Surely, unless the treaty was so restrictive as to bring the US's CO2 emissions down to Chinese levels, some increase must be allowed for China?
this treaty allows for an increase in overall greenhouse gas emissions.
Compared to a complete freeze on CO2 level rises, yes (actually no, but for the sake of argument...)
Compared to no treaty at all, and unrestrained CO2 emissions, then don't talk bollocks.
If it really was about cutting greenhouse gases, it would not allow China to increase theirs.
It's called a "concession." They're used in negotiations to come to what's called an "agreement." 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. I guess we'll just have to nuke them now. That'll stop their greenhouse gasses.
- Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
# The United States Senate (including its Democrats) have blocked the treaty, not George W Bush
GWB had a big influence here though. If he had promised in his campaign "we will not let Manhattan get flooded", it's unlikely the Senate would have decided the same way.
# The Kyoto Treaty increases greenhouse gas emissions (please check section about China)
Eh? You are seriously saying that if that treaty went into effect, we would have more greenhouse gasses than without it? You need to check your logic, I think it may be broken and needs replacing...
# There is no evidence of human impact on global warming anyway
Yes, it must all be a co-incidence... It's just stupid to think that increased amount of these so called "greenhouse gasses" could somehow magically affect the temperature...
You haven't read the treaty. Read it and you will see how messed up it is.
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!
Instead, it allows to increase them
This just isn't true. Overall there is a net reduction.
If it is anything but politics targeting certain countries, change it so that all countries are treated the same in it.
So a country producing 5.5 tons of CO2 carbon per year per capita should reduce their emissions by the same amount as a country producing less than 1 ton per capita? You're insane if you think that is either practical or fair.
RR>>Maybe they are maybe they aren't, but that's beside the point. They were "FACTS" that were in no way relevant to the discussion. The AC only injected them in to make a purely partisan point.
AC>No, the facts ARE the point.
You just don't fucking get it, do you? Let me quote the original AC:
Let the whining begin. Someone will say it is because George W Bush stopped the Kyoto treaty... Of course, this is wrong on three counts... The United States Senate (including its Democrats) have blocked the treaty, not George W Bush.
Of course! George W did it for the environment's sake only! What a caring, nice guy he is. Anyway, if that's a bipartisan comment, then AC#2 sir you truly live in a fucked-up country.
Ladies, form queue here -->
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
The Kyoto protocol was finalised on the 11th of December of that year. How exactly does the Senate vote against a treaty that doesn't exist?
A few years ago the Rush Limbaugh show began promoting the idea that the Senate had "Voted against" Kyoto and done so many years previous. The "July 1997" date was bandied around and, as happens with many memes that particular show introduces, the "fact" was repeated ad-nausium throughout the rightwing press, and then throughout the less partisan press. Few people bothered to check sources, those who did were rapidly shouted down by a media happy to promote a right wing legend.
The idea the Senate had voted down Kyoto never made sense. We'd have heard about it at the time. It would have been a big vote, it'd have been the talk of the press for months, you'd have had environmentalists on one side and industry/energy on the others pushing ads in papers and on TV. It would have been a huge event.
The Senate has never had the Kyoto treaty put before it. Never.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
FROM: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/december97/kyoto _12-12.html
m
But only 38 developed nations are mandated to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions; developing nations only have to set voluntary limits. That could doom U.S. ratification of the Kyoto protocol. The U.S. Senate, which will have to ratify the treaty, voted 95-0 to demand the participation of developing nations in any agreement while those countries have strongly resisted such efforts.
FROM: http://www.globalwarming.org/politics/notreaty.ht
The Kyoto treaty ran into serious trouble starting in 1997, even before it was struck, when the Senate signaled in a unanimous vote that it would not ratify any treaty that harms the U.S. economy and excludes developing nations.
The treaty took a step closer to the scrap heap in December when a last-ditch attempt by the Clinton administration to work out details in negotiations at The Hague collapsed as a result of seemingly irreconcilable differences with the European Union.
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
measuring by per capita? WTF!?! China probably has 4-5 times the population as the US, so the total output probably isn't that much different. Allowing China to get to 1.5 or 2 would mean a major increase in CO2 being released.
You didn't happen to work on the Kyoto draft committee, did you?
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
So, are you saying we'll have less greenhouse gasses without the treaty?
What exactly is so messed up about it? That it requires "3rd world nations" to stay at significantly lower per capita CO2 emissions than "1st world" nations?
Perhaps that reaty was the best this messed up world could come up with... But if not, there should be much more effot to come up with a new treaty, before we have a billion more CO2-producing (be it gasoline, or electricity from coal&gas) cars driving around in China and India...
Hmm, this is clearly a threat to the American way of life... US should invade before it's too late!
Until the Kyoto protocol is put before the Senate, it is absurd to claim that it has voted against it, still more that it was voted against 95-0 (can you seriously imagine an actual vote on Kyoto would be that unanimous?) It hasn't been voted upon. Period.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
China probably has 4-5 times the population as the US, so the total output probably isn't that much different
Approx 4 times the population, so it is still a good chunk less than the US's even in real terms.
Allowing China to get to 1.5 or 2 would mean a major increase in CO2 being released.
Yes! And that's exactly what Kyoto is designed to stop.
Look at it from China's point of view. They only generate a fraction of the CO2 p/c that the US does. From where they stand, they have the 'right' to increase CO2 production by a factor of at least 4.
So what to do? Is it fair to subject 3rd world countries with their developing industries to the same restrictions as the far greater polluters of the first world's mature industries? A simple compromise, forming the basis of Kyoto is to allow the 3rd world countries to expand their industries, but to ensure that any extra CO2 output is restricted to less than that achieved by the cuts in CO2 production by more developed countries.
This is a reasonable plan to allow 3rd world development whilst not hitting developed countries unduly and ensuring a net reduction in CO2 emissions. Practically every country of any importance in the world thought so, the exception being of course the US (who, being the most prolific producer with some of the least controls over CO2 emissions, would find it the easiest to make the cuts).
The Kyoto restrictions will probably help the countries that implement them in the long term anyway; oil is the 20th century's fuel.
If what you say is true, then the Kyoto treaty permits limited increase. On the other hand, the absence of the Kyoto treaty permits unlimited increase. In other words, the Kyoto treaty reduces the permitted total rate of increase of emissions. "The Kyoto treaty would increase emissions" is therefore a nonsense statement. (And saying "[Kyoto] allows to increase them" implies the same thing.) HTH.
Most of the other countries in the world haven't voted for it either.
You mean it's not
?"Provided by the management for your protection."
What a relief!