Slashdot Mirror
World's Largest Tropical Glacier Vanishing
Socguy wrote with a link to a CBC article about the rapidly disappearing Peruvian glacier known as the Quelccaya ice cap. The world's largest tropical glacier was a hot topic this past Thursday at the meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Glaciologist Lonnie Thompson, and a team of Ohio state scientists, produced the stunning news that Quelccaya and similar formations are melting at a rate of some 60 metres per year. While polar ice caps have commanded attention in the discussion of global warming to date, these tropical caps are crucial to the well-being of ecosystems relying on an influx of mountain stream fresh water.
It makes great margaritas.
Is Zonk one of these "trolls" I've been hearing about?
Is it good, or is it whack?
Every time it's proven that global warming is happening, we have people who insist that it isn't. We're not even at the point where we're trying to determine whether or not humans are responsible.
Again, we're just talking at the level of whether or not warming is happening, and it clearly is. The evidence is there, as is shown by the melting of glaciers in Peru and Greenland, a decade of warm winters in the northern US and Canada, ice-free passage through the Arctic Ocean, and so forth.
I'm just wondering when those people who are standing so steadfast against reality will admit that they've been wrong.
Second Life, the enormously popular Internet "virtual reality" world with over 60 zillion users, has PLENTY of tropical glaciers available. You can even build your own glacier, and earn REAL money selling the land to other Second Life players!
Also, it's great if you are a furry.
glaciers melt you.
Hmm, actually no... nothing melts.
Tibbon
tibbon.com
A number of himalaya glaciers are disappearing fast. Once they do, India and Western/Central China are in great danger. As it is, Gorges dam (and the 2 new hydroelectrics being planed) is mostly fed by Glaciers that may disappear in less than 50 years. Worse, this water is used for some of the most fertile land in both countries. That would leave both with far less capability to feed themselves. China will almost certainly pull a W approach and pick a fight with neighboring country with plenty of water. In general, there is only 1 country; Russia.
Bah, I don't believe in global warming. Scientific proofs won't change my faith.
The last bit of news was that some 5,000 year old plants were uncovered due to the glacier melting.
Ah. So it was this warm or dry there 5,000 years ago.
What were you doing 5,000 years ago?
...just got higher! And when the glacier is completely melted the rate will return to the same rate as when the glacier size was stable (= the rate at which rain/snow falls in the glacier region). So where is the problem?
It's hard to imagine how this would affect the "influx of mountain stream fresh water", other than temporarily increase it while the glacier is melting off.
The water isn't magically generated by the glacier, it comes from snow and rainfall in that area, which presumably will continue as before.
On the subject of Global Warming, allow me to be the first Canadian to say YES, YES, AWESOME, FUCK YEAH!
Word has it that it is melting away under a nearly infinite number of microregulations on every aspect of free individual life in the name of potential environmental disaster 100 years out. Sadly while environmental disasters are mostly theory, government disasters are not and have a track record of 100's of millions murdered, and that doesn't even include war.
So...the glaciers are melting because of solar heating....I mean...global warming. But if they melt, the things that depend on the water that comes from them melting will be in trouble. So we want them to not melt, so they can keep on melting.
Can't we just get the UN to make a law that the Sun's not allowed to be a variable star, because it's not fair to the third world?
We've know for the last 30 years, that were are emerging from a little ice age.
The temperature has changed ~1.2C in the last 200 years.
If you read the scholar.google.com papers, 1.1C is caused by increased solar activity. http://www.springerlink.com/content/r2n447034x15v0 87/
0.1C is attributed to atmospheric CO2.
Human activity is responsible for 50% of CO2, the other 50% is volcanic sources.
That makes human activity culpable for about 0.05C in two hundred years.
Of course this paper attributes global warming to cosmic forces http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleUR L&_udi=B6TJK-471854M-3&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F31 %2F2003&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c& _acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid= 10&md5=4df335c97179a6aebe85bacebd0679fe
We've reached the technological ability to see the change, and like Chicken Little run around declaring the "the sky is falling".
"Change, it's the only thing that stays the same" --Levar Burton.
- High Tech workers, please say NO to Union Carpenters, their Union sees fit to control our compensation.
Another article for the hysteria bin. Also in the news today was a warning that the UN needs to "act now!" to be ready for an asteroid strike:
e roid-threat-demands-response-experts-warn.html
"Beginning in the next few months, Schweickart's group will host a series of meetings to provide the UN with a 'decision process' for assessing and acting on the hazard posed by Apophis and other near-Earth asteroids (NEAs). A draft document ready for consideration by the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space is expected by 2009."
http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn11207-ast
When do people see through this racket?
...and not necessarily man-caused.
But you can join that crowd, if you like stampedes.
Moo....
We know that some arctic glaciers are receding, because the media won't shut up about. But there are also glaciers nearby that are advancing instead of receding. That isn't being reported. Glacial growth is significantly dependent on local conditions, so you cannot use the fact that some glaciers are receding as proof of any global trend, without first knowing the state of ALL glaciers.
This is such an important scientific criteria that it needs repeating. Local conditions do not predict global trends. If you want to make global predictions you need a sufficiently large, objectively selected, sample of local conditions. Otherwise you might as well be telling anecdotes on Slashdot.
So the question to ask is: How many tropical glaciers are advancing or staying the same instead of receding? The report does not say, so it is impossible to draw any global conclusions.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
VIVA EL PERU CARAJO
You're lucky they exist in the first place - it's like having a Sahara Catfish...
Don't trust any concentration of power.
Why is it that only anonymous cowards tend to disclaim global warming? ALL of the most recent observations of really important glaciers (read as heavily utilized) tend to point to the fact that most of them are disappearing at a scary rate. If you rely on glacier melt for fresh water, you are most probably fucked...next year, 5 years, 25 years down the road, it doesn't matter. The time frame is debatable. The end result isn't.
How can any educated person deny that we have seriously affected our world ecosystem? Species are going extinct everywhere, local climates are fluctuating wildly, and I sure as hell won't be buying any land that is close to our current sea level.
We don't understand the world or even local climate science in enough depth. Our actions seem to be causing changes that are mostly unpredictable. Just because we can't categorically prove it doesn't mean that we aren't the cause. The predictions I see as most reasonable are actually some of the worst case scenarios.
I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
I was standing on the elevated train platform in Chicago a little while back when it was at least -10F every day for nearly two weeks wondering why I haven't heard anything from these global warming idiots in awhile. If it's too hot in Peru go sit under a tree. There's still no evidence to say that global warming is even taking place (warming and cooling trends over the past hundreds of years, sunspots?) or if it is taking place that it will ultimately have bad consequences. Meanwhile I'm paying $800 a month in gas bills to heat a 2BR apt. And I don't drive a huge gas guzzling SUV, I get 28mph Also, fuck (the) Ohio State. Thank you.
This is odd on a couple counts. First, Lonnie Thompson has undoubtedly been aware for a couple decades that Quelccaya has been melting away (I used to work in a different university's ice core lab, and we used to collaborate with Lonnie). Second, based on both climate models and historical records I'm pretty sure that what we refer to as "global warming" shouldn't have a huge impact on tropical glaciers. During both glacial and interglacial periods the significant temperature changes were in subtropical and especially arctic areas - tropical areas saw very little change. What this means is: even if we'd never dumped tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, Quelccaya would still likely be melting away right now.
This isn't meant as an argument in the debate over human-caused global warming; it's just an argument that Quelccaya is probably not good supporting evidence for either side.
#DeleteChrome
What if humans are the cause of Global Warming? Aren't we all a natural phenomena? After all, we're no different from other animals, right? It could be natural that humans destroy the balance of the planet.
OK, I don't really believe any of the above, but it makes me question people who think we're no better than animals, and yet claim that we still have a responsibility to protect the planet.
"I'll see you next time." - LeVar Burton
(7000+1400+700)*4 Numbers continue 'Usenet. In 1995, moans and groans
Indeed, and there's also nuclear war and pandemics to worry about. What was your point?
Current/Past situation...
- snow falls and accumulates into snowpack over the winter
- snowpack melts during spring and summer, supplying water for irrigation during the growing season
- snowpack doesn't melt completely during summer. This means there's a reserve that can handle a couple of dry years
Future situation
- rain falls during the winter and runs off to the sea
- no water during the summer
- a couple of dry winters makes things even worse
Do you have any idea how huge a dam you'd need to hold water equivalant to the snow cover on a mountain range?
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
1) Melt Tropical Glaciers.
2) ???
3) Profit!
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C1 bottles of beer on the wall. Take one down, pass it round... Oh, umm...
"Our actions seem to be causing changes that are mostly unpredictable."
Read what you just typed.
Vermifax
Logout
But there are also glaciers nearby that are advancing instead of receding. That isn't being reported.
Do you know why this isn't being reported by most media outlets? Because it's not actually happening! There are no studies nor published measurements supporting your claims.
You're not correct just because you heard Rush Limbaugh incorrectly say that there are advancing glaciers in some areas, a claim which anyone in the field of geology, geophysics or glaciology can easily prove incorrect.
The fact is, as this article clearly shows, that glaciers around the world are melting. We don't necessarily know why, but we know that they are. Likewise, we also know that other glaciers are not growing larger. Again, this is measured and documented fact. You'll just have to admit that you're wrong on this one.
How many feet of sea level rise does the Himalayan glacial melt represent? We see stats about the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (5m) and Greenland (7m), but what about the Himalays? And what about the contribution from all the Andean glaciers, not just Peru's? Canada's got lots of land ice...
Even the NASA data for flood elevations goes up to only 14m. We've got a lot more ice than that.
--
make install -not war
For the same reason why people post as AC whenever it is on a topic where there is a strong majority opinion opposing them; they know that they are likely to get modded into hell and have their precious karma torn apart.
One thing that does and always has moderate me is that when the group think really gets going it can result in comments that are certainly insightful/informative/whatever getting modded down because they are going against the consensus of the group. The point of the moderation system is not to sit around jerking each other off about how much you agree. The point of discussion is to explore different points of view, debate, pontificate, and in general act like intellectuals who are not afraid of dissidents from the group.
I personally think that glaciers melting is a bad thing and that humans probably can take a hunk of the blame for it. That said, it pisses me off when I see completely reasonable arguments to the opposite getting modded down as flames, trolls, or (the slightly more reasonable) overrated. At the same time, we get a dozen one line "See!!!! When will people realize global warming is real!!!!" post modded up like that actually brings something intelligent to the conversation.
This isn't a battle to mod the other sides opinion into oblivion. The point is to actually converse. People are posting as AC because the environment of conversation is completely broken when it comes to this topic. Utter crap that agrees with the majority opinion is getting modded up, and well thought out arguments against the majority opinion are getting slammed down. People shouldn't have to post AC to post a dissenting opinion.
*BSD but FreeBSD EXAMPLE, IF YOU (I always bring my dim. Due to the you're told. It's the project faces, to you by Penisbird fanatic known suuplies to private
"My dear friend Condoleezza says I am destroying the Venezuelan economy," said Chavez, a fierce critic of U.S.-style capitalism. "Death to the empire! We will not be dominated. We have decided to be free!" Chavez also said Venezuela was unconcerned with plans by the Bush administration to become less dependent on crude oil from politically unfriendly nations. "If they do not want to buy it, say it, and I will not sell them oil," he said.
Every damn story about something melting, getting hotter, dying, etc. always has the subtext: "You lousy humans are THE cause." Guess what? If it's a problem, it won't be solved by diverting all talk of the subject to us lousy humans. Solving it first requires detached observation of what's happening, then detached ideas about the cause, then detached tests to see if changing the apparent causes changes the effect. And who knows, we might conclude that major change beyond our control is in the near future and that we must find ways to accommodate to a new climate.
Or are you saying that these good things are actually being reported?
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
No fires. The flight crews waited in the B-17 until they were rescued. The only fires documented were the ones they made themselves from oxygen tanks.
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
Here is a good/short argument that earth temperature is maxed out.
http://www.ianschumacher.com/gwc.html
We need a nuclear holocaust to get these important glaciers back.
Let's see:
1. climate change skeptic in self-righteous post promotes solar-cycle theory.
2. climate change believer rapidly ripostes regarding selective fact picking.
3. comments about big-oil funded research
4. "AAAARGH - who cares what's causing it - let's fix it NOW!" i.e. unreasonable PANIC
5. comments arguing for caution, measured response i.e. unreasonable calm
6. some idiot bringing Microsoft in to this.
7. inevitable (yet unamusing) "...PROFIT!" jokes
8. inevitable (yet much deserved) Bush/US bashing.
9. various meta-posts (e.g. checklists of posts)
Climate change: Nero - fiddle - Rome - burn.
Every time you delete or save file, 2 Kelvins of heat are released into the world. I don't think it unreasonable to conclude that the rise of the computer is responsible for global warming. If you look at it from a purely scientific point of view, there is a direct linkage to the increase of storage (Disk Drives) and global warming. You might think 2 Kelvin is a small amount of heat but when you multiple all those files by 2 Kelvin it just starts to add up. One company has billions and billions of files. That one company is responsible for more global warming than all the SUV every produced.
In 1973 IBM shipped the model 3340 Winchester sealed hard disk drive, the predecessor of all current hard disk drives. The 3340 had two spindles each with a capacity of 30 MBytes, and the term "30/30 Winchester". The Winchester rifle was responsible for killing all the Indians. The Winchester hard drive is responsible for killing the planet. Is it any wonder when scientists predicted global cooling in the 70s all these new hard drives came online? Was IBM trying to save the world from freezing or is there something much more sinister at work? I've heard rumors that IBM was heavily invested in companies like TRANE and CARRIER. Also IBM recently sold off most of their hard drive lines to Hitachi. I believe IBM was on the verge of being exposed for their part of global warming and decided to get rid of most of their drives.
I do have a plan to stop Global warming. I don't believe it's very realistic to have everyone stop using computers. So I will suggest the following steps to help stop global warming.
The scientist that create computer models about our environment... PLEASE STOP NOW. You are creating and deleting trillions and trillions of files. We can not afford to wait any longer. If you love mother earth and I know you do, you will stop.
Spammers: I know you don't care about us but maybe, just maybe some of you care enough about the earth. After the scientist creating the computer models, your kind are the most responsible. Please stop sending out Spam that nobody wants and that is killing the environment.
Users: quit saving all those e-mails you get. You'll never read them all. I know you keep thinking that one day you'll get around to it. Please just give up and quit saving all those e-mails.
Microsoft: Quit Making Operating Systems and Office that take trillions of files to do something sort of useful. In the spirit of saving the world from global warming please start shipping DOS 6.22. It only has a hand full of files and has more than enough power for the average user. It also helps eliminate the problem with the spammers and the Users who save all their e-mail.
ALL: Do we really need 1 TB of storage on our locale PC? Can't we downside to something that has a smaller footprint. We should all be limited to 2GB total for both work and home.
Government: The UN should pass a resolution that all computer users are limited to 2 GB of storage and can have no more that 1000 file writes and deletes per year. For those that have over 2 GB of storage or 1000 writes or deletes, those individual should be fined heavily with the proceeds to go to help the children.
Some of you might think that this requires further investigation but to those of you who think that way I say, How long can we wait??? If we don't do something now to stop the writing and deleting of files now it may be too late. I predict if we don't change our ways somewhere between 1 to 1000 years, then we and all that we love are doomed.
The world seems to be of the opinion that the existence of global warming proves we are fucking up this planet... and it's non-existence would prove that we're fine... as if global warming is the ONLY environmental issue there is, and if we can solve that, we're fine. Jeebus!
What about deforestation? Air quality? Mass extinctions? Loss of biodiversity? Water availability and quality? Overpopulation? Non-renewable resource shortages? Nuclear waste? Landfill?
Anyone tasted the air in peak hour traffic in a major city? Isn't that enough to prompt some action?
We don't have to prove the earth is warming for us to realise the damage we are doing! It's a RED HERRING! It's just one issue. What if we solve global warming... then what? Will our attitudes have changed? Will we still be pumping sewage in the ocean, burning coal and cutting down all the trees?
Global Warming isn't a problem unto itself... its a symptom of our abuse of this planet. It's only a poster-boy issue. Both sides need to stop debating - it doesn't matter whether global warming is happening or not. It's OBVIOUS the damage we're doing... that should be enough to prompt us to fix it.
I know! This "act now" shit is getting out of hand. Fucking scientists... What have they ever done? Bunch of pinko leftist communist fascists. I don't want to live if I can't drive around in my Hummer with all windows down, A/C on full, 3 miles per gallon. I don't care. Fuck you and your planet. I even removed my catalytic converter just to piss off the LIEbruls. You goddamn Nazi sonofbitches trying to take my freedoms away.
Live free or die!
Here's a thought: maybe they're like me, and have had their accounts modded down to Karma -1: Terrible because in the past we've dared to ask questions about the Glabal Warming issue. By asking questions, I don't mean doubting, or criticising...I mean asking questions which possibly make Global Warming believers uncomfortable, and so the bandwagoners hit the Mod-Into-Oblivion button.
My 4-digit account used to have good Karma on Slashdot. I routinely got modded +5 Informative, Insightful, Whatever. I don't think I was ever modded Troll or Flamebait. That was until I asked a person who was shrieking about how "we should all kill ourselves for what we'd done to the Planet" why it wasn't possible to calmly try and explore the topic sensibly and rationally. Buh-bye karma!
I no longer talk about the GW issue, and doubt it's even possible to discuss it---letalone do anything about it---when most people are capable only of knee-jerk reactions, one way or the other. Believe it or not, I'm stocking up instead. I recently purchased 200 acres of land on a high mountain plateau, a long way from anywhere, and am getting ready to build a house on it. It'll be well stocked with food and water.
Does that make me a survivalist nutcase? Whatever. Even if Global Warming turns out to be just another embarrassing storm in a tea cup, at least my family now has a really nice vacation home. And now that I'm posting AC, a big fuck you very much to the reactionary, intolerant karma killers.
I'm so sick of all the left-wing zealots going crazy over news like this.
Global Warming is a simple, natural phenomenon whereby the planet destroys a large percentage of it's population - including humanity, and then starts over again.
Nothing to worry about.
---
Too large a percentage?
Ace
not sure if anybody has thought of this yet but it seems pretty simple to me.... get a bunch of those snow making machines that ski resorts use.. or build a few really big ones, just use the melting water and put it right back on top of these mountains. QED.
Glacier. Tropics. Shouldn't it be melting quickly?
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
Things are changing now rapidly on this world of ours.
.
Items of note:
1. Dangerous climate change.
2. UFO weirdness, crop-circles and continuing cattle mutilations.
3. War and the preparation for really big war with the apparent goal of the annihilation of all the Semites, (both Jew and Arabic; same blood and similar DNA qualities.)
4. Big rocks falling from the sky; enough to wipe out humanity.
5. Preparations in place for total military lock-down of North America.
Uh. . , what the heck?
So, in such times as these, what is one to do?
Here are a few ideas which will NOT work. .
1. Ignore it by distracting yourself with TV and video games in the hope that it will all go away.
This is silly for a couple of reasons, the first being that, obviously, it will not work, and secondly, that the coolest show on Earth is currently unfolding. Why would anybody want to miss watching it? The end of the world as we know it isn't the sort of thing happens every day!
2. Get down on your knees and pray to the holy whatchamacallit, mecca, guy on a cross, Jehovah lord of destruction. Religion is a BAD plan. In fact, it was mucked about with so that it became the plan to get all the silly humans to line up and shoot each other, (as we are witnessing in the Middle East.) Christ was a decent guy with a lot of great ideas, but very few of them survived in the bible and similar documents. Essentially, what he said was: "We are all one, all connected. Do unto your brother as you would do unto yourself. The kingdom of Heaven is not up in the sky. It's within you. We are all infinite creatures and though we live beneath the veil of forgetting, we have access to that infinity at all times. So love, forgive and do not judge, just do the best you can." He might well have added, "Do not go to church and don't expect anybody to 'rapture' you away. That's all a lie designed to distract you from working on the self. Nobody can deal with your baggage for you no matter how hard you 'believe'; your troubles in this world are your challenges to work through; they are your gifts to yourself and I'm certainly not going to take them away from you. How can you grow if somebody takes away your challenges, if you stop thinking for yourself? Do not follow. Not following is a key."
3. Trust in Science. Science is a great thing, but we're not going to be ducking out on the coming lessons through some kind of Star Trek quick-fix.
So what CAN be done?
Well. . , for starters, it would be a good idea to learn as much as you can about everything. Look into all those pesky conspiracy theories and happenings which are the focus of so much disdain among the sceptic-folk. I know a lot of people who haven't ever looked into any non-mainstream material because they don't want to look silly and instead quote lots of sceptic explanations for weird phenomenon which look great on paper and sound soothingly reasonable until you actually look closely at the material in question and realize that there is far, far more to it all than can ever be covered up by a few clever rationalizations. And it's precisely this weird stuff that orthodox culture doesn't want you looking at too closely at which is rapidly shaping our reality. That's the stuff to study, because without a full understanding of it all, you simply won't be able to deal with all the changes coming. Be warned, though: those who are not successfully turned away from looking are often caught up in the second tier of control; 95% of what you will find is twisted nonsense, much like the bible/koran/torah. You have to use your brain, trust your instincts and dis-trust your feelings. (Feelings can easily be manipulated.)
The second thing you need to do is to make a choice: Are you primarily here to serve yourself, or to serve others? Dark-side/Light-side. You have to choose and choose soon. Those who sit on the fence are doomed to repeat the whole ugly cycle on this planet in this lower vibra
>when the storm shifted course, the call to evacuate was cancelled.
>the state government didn't folow protocal and request the help that the law says she needed to do untill after being reminded by an aid when a reporter asked why the national guard wasn't there yet.
Mayor Nagin issued a voluntary evacuation call August 27 at 5 PM and made it mandatory the next day. Also on the 28th, Governor Blanco asked the President for a major disaster declaration and invoked the Stafford Act. Counterflow traffic went into effect that day. That afternoon, Gov. Blanco accepted an offer of National Guard troops from the governor of New Mexico. Federal approval for the transfer didn't come until the following Thursday.
On August 28th the President got a briefing that used the word "catastrophe" and didn't ask a single question or give a single order. If he had, perhaps Chertoff would have activated the Critical Incident Annex to the National Response Plan.
Landfall was morning of Monday, the 29th.
On the 29th, Gov. Blanco said "Mr. President, we need your help. We need everything you've got". The President went to senior centers to promote the Medicare prescription drug plan and went to a photo-op for McCain's birthday. He talked to Chertoff about -- immigration. He played guitar with Mark Willis, and said that when he returned to DC on Thursday he would "begin work". Thursday was when the DoD finally started giving logistics help to FEMA.
More at the bipartisan Congressional report.
Local government down there has never worked right -- pointing to that is a lame excuse for the multiple failures at the federal level.
So you're saying we're only allowed to think about and try to come up with solutions for only one problem at a time? Guess this is the same line of thought that produces 'why do this, why aren't they working on curing cancer?'
Ohhhhhh, I get it. You think the asteroid-impact risk has gone away because hollywood isn't making any more films about it, and since we haven't all died in the last 5 years from that yet, we can forget about it. *sigh*
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
Look at the 'photos of all the glaciers in the world. They are all in rapid retreat. Here are some of Mt. Kilimanjaro. It's scary. I live pretty close to sea level, but about 5 miles inland, and I hope I'll be moving house before the sea level rise makes it compulsory.
I must have been hit by the extremists. They always leave the worst impressions though. But just because they didn't ruin your karma doesn't mean others have been so fortunate.
As for my mountaintop land, no, GW wasn't my rationale for acquiring it. However it will certainly be useful should the GW alarmists be correct.
"if we don't reduce emmission there is at most a 1/10 chance civilization is facing a collapse and an associated "population correction". "
Obviously that should read: "is NOT facing".
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
That is why they go AC. GW is a religion here.
/. would make the Inqusitors from long ago proud. I don't doubt that there are campaigns staged by groups to tilt the discussion at websites such as this. That is one of the mechanisms they promote.
As to the issue at hand.
What about the other thousand or so Glaciers that ARE ADVANCING?
This whole GW mess is all one sided. You never hear about the thousands of glaciers that are gaining mass. No, you only hear about the ones that are losing it. Why should many of us take the GW side seriously when they report only what advances their case and totally dismiss anything that doesn't? The poison most good sites of information with their campaign of omission. Look at WikiPedia. You can find a huge article with pictures about disappearing glaciers but you won't find information about all the glaciers increasing in mass. Nope, not at all. Guess what, try and put one there with links. Go for it. Really....
Sorry, but for a community that supposedly prizes facts and discussion the holy war waged by the Global Warming supporters on
Oh well, glaciers come and glaciers go. Just figure this out, some of these Glaciers were fine up till a decade ago. What shifted THAT suddenly to make them vanish. Sorry, it wasn't man. After all most claims it was the industrial revolution that started the mess, advancing well into the late 20th century where the real damage started. Yet some of these glaciers did just fine until very very recently. To me that indicates something bigger than us happened. Hopefully we will realize it before we go off an ruin the standard of living for millions
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
From summary:
The world's largest *tropical* *glacier * was a *hot topic*
Hot topic indeed.
I'll just take issue here with the epithets being used here: "denial addicts" and "Greenhouse deniers." The first dismisses anyone who disagrees with the GW hypothesis as mentally unsound -- that is, they disagree because they're just crazy. The second is apparently a calculated attempt to compare anyone who disagrees with GW to a "Holocaust denier," implying that those who disagree are evil and murderous. Similarly, some writer recently gave the opinion that the "deniers" should be brought before a "climate Nuremburg" trial to punish them for delaying action on climate change through their sin of expressing the wrong opinions. Both terms are useful for winning an argument through name-calling, but they don't add much to the substance of the debate.
Revive the Constitution.
// "Global Cooling" is a BS red herring that only Greenhouse deniers like you take "seriously". //
I like how its a red herring now. Yet it was the "consensus" of its age and I am quite sure naysayers will equally villified as they are today. Nearly all the dire predictions for it were similar to the "global warming" today, yet none came to pass.
So, since it didn't occur it was never postulated either? Is that how this system works? Anything that is predicted that does not occur yet those with opposing views who bring it up are reaching for straws?
So I guess bring up the mass starvation that was to occur in the late 70s and 80s that never occured is equally a red herring?
Why not admit it. Everyone makes mistakes. If you won't acknowledge those which make you look bad why should people who don't buy into your view accept ANYTHING you say?
As for it being proven that some of this is stoppable thats fine, the issue is, is it what man is doing that is causing the problem. We can surely stop what we are doing but no one has proven conclusively that its man that caused the shift.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Could it be that the earth's angle to the galactic plane is changing? Such a change may be the reason for the melting of glaciers, the increasingly lower temperatures in the North, the change of position of the magnetic poles, the messed up seasons etc.
Of course someone could say that such a change would be obvious right from the start, since there are many people looking at the skies each night.
Name a single scientist who denies that the climate is currently warming. Just one.
You can't? You're not going to bother because its so trivial? Or because its simply not true?
So when a global warming story comes along (as it does all too frequently) then make the same straw man case over and over. Google does the rest.
The question is not if the climate is warming, since the global climate has generally warmed since the early 17th Century (well before industrialization but hey! what's the point of quibbling over trivia?), the questions are does that warming have a single human-based cause and if so should we do anything about it and can we do anything about it.
But first, before we know whether the current warming is extraordinary, we've got to check that a few scientists aren't rewriting the past to make the late 20th Century warming seem greater than it really is.
The whole question of whether the warming is natural or man-made is one of the great open questions of science.
We will now see the Slashdot effect applied to moderating this response down so that readers are not accidentally and unnecessarily educated.
Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
Well, yeah, if drug addicts and suchlike decide policy, things may go badly. But that's not actually what you are getting at, is it? You're trying to imply that there is something wrong with progressive policies such as looking after the poor or taking care of our environment. Your whole argument about cancer would have been more convincing if you hadn't started to foam at the mouth there.
"We don't understand the world or even local climate science in enough depth."
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
As reported by Professor Robert E. Sloan, Department of Geology, University of Minnesota here:
Each time a scientist come up with some theory like : "Humm.... Factor {$F} has some interaction with the environment. Maybe we should control it more and try to avoid interfering with an already too much complicated equilibrium we don't fully understand. We can't afford the risk of worsening existing problems with our actions"
Then, the journalists come up with title like "Exclusive news !!! End of world next week : we all die because of {$F}"
People starts stock pile provition for use in case of having to hide in their cellar for the next two centuries.
And then the week passes and nothing serious happens.
So people stop believe the theory, or at least their *perception* of the theory through the press.
And it suddenly becomes very easy to deny that theory. People need to deny it, because their own habits that they like su much, depends on keeping the statu quo. And so saying that the theory is wrong because the catastrophic result didn't happen is very tempting.
Now add to the situation experts hired from companies that profit from {$F} and you can make nice show were expert says that we should pay that much intention to {Theory as stated in press} because we don't understand that well the problem {true, as per original publication} there are other reasons causing it {true, as per original publication} there for the theory is wrong {false, because fails to admit that the role of {$F} has been proven too, and the original publication's intent wasn't to say that {$F} is the cause of everything, but that it's an additional man-made cause that should be controlled in order to avoid interfering with the complexe processus}
And this falls conveniently into the ears of the mass who doesn't want to chance their habit.
That's what is happening with global warming
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
...these tropical caps are crucial to the well-being of ecosystems relying on an influx of mountain stream fresh water. Looks like they'll get plenty here pretty soon.I can see the point that the plants adapted to the Cretaceous might have been slightly more efficient at photosysnthesis though I doubt that one can easily implicate greater availability of CO2 since the increased growing season would have a greater effect. Plants adapted to the Holocene may do much worse in the face of a rapid increase in CO2 for while productivity may go up, the range of pests can also increase with the increase in temperature subjecting large tracks of forests to die off. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046 /j.1461-9563.2002.00124.x/full/?cookieSet=1
s -selling-solar.html
The key here is the rapidity of the change which allows the fast moving species (the pests) to overcome the slow moving species (the trees).
With regard to agriculture, beyond growing season, the timing of the availability of water is crucial, and the loss of glaciers and snowpack reduce the availability of water during the gowing season, counteracting the increase in the season. The cost of attempting to retain water that in the past has been held by snowpack may be unrealistically high, leading to the shutting down of vast amounts of currently productive agricutural land.
--
Switch to Solar: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
See this.
I'll take issue with your oversimplification and hyperbole. Not everyone who disagrees with the Global Warming observations and Greenhouse theory is dismissed as crazy. Though some are. Anyone denying Greenhouse science on hearsay or on nothing is irrational. "Crazy", as you say. Others making rational arguments on science, political/business cost or even philosophy of uncertainty can get a fair shake. The crazy ones aren't worth the time to treat gently, and they're infectious.
"Denier" is an epithet that describes someone who denies, especially without basis. Trying to Godwin that fair characterization of Greenhouse deniers is what's insubstantial. Much like the subtle Holocaust denial that forbids comparing other, especially current, repetitions of Nazi fascism or genocide to the original article.
Meanwhile, Greenhouse and Holocaust denial do have a lot in common. Most deniers in history, especially during the Holocaust, were overwhelmed by the enormity of the murderous evil. They bought into the Big Lie to protect themselves, flight rather than fight such a monster that would eventually threaten themselves. This is true of the Greenhouse: it's a lot easier putting gas in your SUV when you deny that burning it makes you more responsible for the Greenhouse than people who burn less. Given the scale of the Greenhouse threat, and the compelling evidence and qualified arguments pointing it out, Greenhouse denial can be at least as evil and murderous as Holocaust denial, though probably more murderous if not quite as evil.
I'd like to see a citation of "some writer" who opined that Greenhouse deniers should face a "climate Nuremburg" for "expressing the wrong opinions". Positions on scientific facts aren't "opinions", they're judgements, more or less right/wrong. And making uncited claims destroys any substance of this "debate" that has been entirely based on irrational propaganda for decades. Until now that we're facing the catastrophe decades too late for it to be anything like easy or certain to be solved.
If Holocaust denial were met with solely calm, technical academic refutations, without calling it bluntly what it is, the general consensus that it happened, that real people did it, that it was abominable, that it must not happen again, that it could happen again if we're not vigilant, would not be so certain. If we don't call Greenhouse deniers what they are, we will all face eradication at our own hands.
--
make install -not war
You might want to take a look at what is happening with regard to to the carryover supply of food (going down) and the impact of the large number of distilleries being built in time to eat into this year's harvest http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2007/Update63. htm. The capacity that is kept in reserve may not be quite so large as you think.s -selling-solar.html
--
Solar power, the original renewable: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
... my driveway.
:)]
...]
[Northern US is currently experiencing unusual cold and snow. It's funny. Laugh
[{cricket chirp} {cricket chirp}]
[OK, I'll keep my day job
I object to the word overpopulation. It seems to me that it denies fundemental human rights just to say it with regard to people. With regard to population dynamics models such as predator-prey interactions one is looking at a lag balance in any case so applying the term overpopulation seems a little laddened there as well. How about aplying this test: any time you want to use the term, imagine yourself first as Scrooge using the term "surplus population" to see if it has the same effect. If it does, then you are probably misusing the term.
According to this story, it looks pretty nice there: http://grapheety.com/?story=119&zoom=10
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Were it not for global warming, many parts of the world would still be under an ice field.
1 in 4 Maine children in struggle with hunger.
IT'S A FUCKING PIECE OF ICE IN THE TROPICAL RAIN FOREST!
Quit wasting my tax dollars because you want a Peruvian Vacation in Lake Titicaca (hehe, I said Ca Ca).
So do some maths and see what sort of extra energy would result.
Then you'll have to see how the human creation of CO2 isn't causing as much change as it otherwise would appear to (and via a method that is either underestimated: another model please, or unthought of: another model!).
You see, it's damn easy to say "couldn't it be X?" but damn hard to work it in to the other stuff that is known.
Looking forward to your paper...
An anonymous coward can still claim credit for the post by printing the post submission confirmation screen. In cases where there is a pay-per-post arragement posting as an anonymous coward can boost the financial return. There is quite a lot of money behind getting these contrarian views out there without tracable attribution to the funding source http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/your-opinion-c ould-be-paid-for-by.html.
The same issue arises with voter receipts. Those why buy votes can have greater certainty that they are getting what they pay for when polling places give out receipts. In the case of the slashcode, the buyer can be even more certain. Showing no data after clicking submit for anonymous cowards might help out with this problem.
Something like 80% of Canada's population lives within 100km of the border with the US.
You very well know all of these are not "Canadians", they are former loyal British colonists that are now amassing on the US border for the Great Push over the border in the coming months/years (secret!). The US population will be overwhelmed and a great Kanada will be built! You know the motto of our great leader - "To the 30th parallel or war!"
Apparently the "climate Nuremburg" comment came from one David Roberts of a "humor" site that was making one of those ha-ha-only-serious comments:
Roberts wrote in the online publication on September 19, 2006, "When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards -- some sort of climate Nuremberg."
The comment got the attention of Congressional Republicans, here (with more details). Reason Magazine likened such a proposal to an inquisition, here. The Congressional article cited an author criticizing the use of the term "climate change denier," here. That writer's thread from two days later (2006.10.11) asks people to help find the origin of such terms. The first comment there cites a 2001 book review in Nature (big-name scientific journal) making the comparison:
The text [of "The Skeptical Environmentalist"] employs the strategy of those who, for example, argue that gay men aren't dying of AIDS, that Jews weren't singled out by the Nazis for extermination, and so on.
Similarly, a 2001 article in The Ecologist compares denial of global warming -- that is, refusal "to accept our responsibility for a crime of such enormity" with no regard to why -- with "the refusal of many European Jews to recognize their impending extermination."
So, for years there have been explicit comparisons in the media by people who support GW. So, it's true that at least some environmentalists with some influence are using "denial" in a loaded way to demonize their opponents. By the way, your own comment said no, it's not being used that way... and then that "Greenhouse denial can be at least as evil and murderous as Holocaust denial."
Revive the Constitution.
Let me go on the slashdot record saying that I don't buy into the environmental propaganda. Are we destroying this planet? Dam right we are. But is mankind excessively contributing to global warming ? I'm beginning to doubt it more and more. Is there global warming? Yes, but the temperature of this planet isn't static. Compared to the amount of co2 that the earth itself naturally dumps into the atmosphere we are a campfire next to a forest fire.
Can we instead talk about species going extinct, forests being destroyed, and the way we are turning the oceans into a toilet? Those are identifiable problems that we can actually have an impact on today.