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.

Comments

The real reason it's vanishing

[Anonymous Coward]

It makes great margaritas.

When will the denials stop?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:When will the denials stop?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no global warming. And even if there were, there's no proof humans are causing it. The liberal press is full of wingnuts. And besides, it doesn't matter because we're all going to heaven soon, except for the heathens. And I know for a fact that the earth is flat and has been since god created it 6000 years ago. And SCO will win its lawsuit against IBM. Because god told me so. I can prove Intelligent Design is true, because I am a shining example of it. By the way, I have a new job next week. I will be the SysAdmin at your company.

Re:When will the denials stop?

[GaryPatterson]

It's also a well-known fact that the death rate of polar bears has increased.

Should we posit that more polar bears equals a cooler planet? That polar bears are critical to the regulation of temperature around the globe?

You need to show causation, not just correlation. And you didn't show correlation anyway. How often to the poles move about? Does that match the cycle of previous warming/cooling periods? Is there any link whatsoever?

Re:When will the denials stop?

[anagama]

Well, there is some ice core evidence that the current rapid rate of overall increases is unusual. Whether humans are the total cause or not is probably debatable, but in some ways irrelevant. Let's try an analogy:

• Imagine it is high summer with a temp approaching 85 degrees F.
• You are inside your house with the heat on, windows closed.
• You are sweating, uncomfortable, and wish it would be cooler

If you're a pickup truck republican wingnut, you go turn on your AC to counter the heat and ignore the fact you are partly at fault for the uncomfortable environment in your house.

If you are a rational person, you recognize that you are having an impact on the environment within your house. You turn off the heat and open the windows. After a while, you're still on the warm side because it's 85 out, but you aren't ridiculously uncomfortable.

Note: 85 feels hot to me, replace this figure with whatever you're aclimated to.

Re:When will the denials stop?

[sumdumass]

It doesn't matter if it's a long-term cycle or a short-term cycle. What matters is that it's happening, and it's really starting to affect us. For example, most people these days don't have more than a week or so worth of food stored up. So let's suppose the warming is just a short-term trend, lasting only a year. Even just one year of poor crop yields will send food prices through the roof. And as we saw in New Orleans so recently, even American civilization isn't as strong as we may think. The result will be major strife.

Well, There isn't even much there to worry about. First, we product too much food as it is. We are talking about using food as our gas and deisel we have so much of it. Second, we have government subsidies that artificialy inflate the price of food by paying farmers not to produce as much as they would like. so there is room for adjustment there. Third, when good land goes bad, Bad land will become good. err new pices of land will be able to support crops that wouldn't normaly. This wil offset some of it too. While there might be a problem, I doubt it will be that bad. Especialy if it is a cycle that will fix itself.

As for New Orleans and Katrina, There was a serious breakdown from the local government levels there. It isn't that we couldn't handle it, it was we couldn't follow protocal. The first thing that went wrong was when the storm shifted course, the call to evacuate was cancelled. Mos of those people shouldn't have even been there. The second thing that went wrong was 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. Then after the proper requests were sent to satisfythe law, half another day was waisted in fighting over who would command the reliefe effort. FEMA was supposed to do it but the govenor thought she could better spend the money on resources and stuff. Once that had passed, all the blame had been placed on FEMA and Mike Brown who told it like it was at the senate hearing when everyone tried to place the blame on him. But what really made the whole thing worse was that funds were allocated over the last two decades for maintinance and improvments to the levi system and they were diverted into bridge projects and cannals to industrial parks.

If you doubt this, just look at the surrounding areas that were hit just as hard. They were destroyed just as bad or worse then New Orleans but didn't recieve near as much attention because they had their shit together. Entire towns were gone after katrina hit. But from what I understand, New Orleans has suffered coruption and incompetence for quite a while now. And it is all the way up the state levels and possibly federal levels in the area too. Without any of this, the entire responce would have been different. And it has been different in other disasters when the people invovled knew what was going on.

Re:When will the denials stop?

[DeadChobi]

Hey, I'm a skeptic too, but there is indeed evidence that at least some of the warming is human-caused. Of course, it's also possible that the earth has very slightly shifted its orbit too, and that what humans are doing is simply forcing some oscillation that takes place over many thousands of years. I mean forcing as in forced harmonic oscillation.

That said, unless we can somehow damp the oscillation we're going to be very warm indeed if the trend continues.

Also, there was another post earlier characterizing all global warming skeptics as backward-thinking fundamentalist christians who believe in intelligent design. That kind of characterization contributes nothing to the discussion, It just sets up a straw man for everyone else to viciously attack. It's not funny, it's not insightful, and it's not intelligent. I'm sure if you look through my history of posts I've said stupid stuff like that too. However, it's been my experience that if you want to convince anyone of anything you can't go around calling them a moron or you're going to get the door slammed in your face.

Re:When will the denials stop?

[Doc Ruby]

Maybe the thousands of climate scientists who say humans are pushing climate change over the edge somehow overlooked that research. No one at NASA ever discusses their research, so it might have gone unnoticed.

You just saved the world from the ignorant climate scientists! Have another cookie.

Re:When will the denials stop?

[Planesdragon]

There is still NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that the temperature changes we're seeing nowadays aren't [just] part of some long term cyclical effect that we haven't yet been able to detect,

Wrong. We have the (rapidly shrinking) antarctic ice, whose layers of melt-and-freeze give us a record stretching back some 65,000 years. In all that time -- eight times longer than since the dawn of civilization -- we can observe correlating CO2 and temperature levels. In all of those cycles, not ONCE has the CO2 gotten to the point where it is now.

If it's a "long-term" effect, it's long-term in a species-ending geological sense. It may be "just natural", but if so it'll still end us if we don't do something to offset and moderate it.

And, even if it's just a natural cycle, embracing the scientific status quo is a means for American Profit. Or do you really think that somehow all of the American genius vanished after WWII? A new paradigm that rewards innovation will mean American profits. Maybe different Americans, maybe the same Americans -- but unless you own a large GM portfolio, you really don't care.

Re:When will the denials stop?

[LynnwoodRooster]

Exactly! I mean, my conjecture of the magnetic field being unstable is based upon models and some local phenomena, and drifting magnetic north fields. But we know it's flipped and been unstable in the past, so it must be now, because the models say so and we have localized data...

Kind of like the "Man's driving climate change" argument, eh?

Re:When will the denials stop?

[drix]

Also, there was another post earlier characterizing all global warming skeptics as backward-thinking fundamentalist christians who believe in intelligent design.

I agree, that's going way too far.

Most of them believe in creationism.

Re:When will the denials stop?

[optimusNauta]

I cannot believe that people would mark something like this as 'informative.' First of all, this view is only partially relevant when talking about America and perhaps Western Europe. If you look at other nations, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, hunger is a problem now, even without drastic climate change, because there isn't enough food produced for all the people there. Imagine if climate change caused the desert of the Sahara to shift south, or if longer rainy seasons destroyed fragile ecosystems, causing crops to fail. The entire continent could starve, and little could be done about it.

Looking back at the United States, particularly at Katrina, it is unfair to say that only the local government was to blame. Other areas are not as bad off as New Orleans because New Orleans is an urban area, with a much higher population density and less sturdy construction, in addition to being below sea-level, allowing it to flood. Furthermore, state emergence planning for catastrophes is based on what might be called a good-neighbor policy. If one parish or community is destroyed by a natural disaster, others nearby are supposed to come to its aid. In the case of Katrina, the entire area surrounding New Orleans was devastated, so of course the state was unable to respond. In such a situation, it is the obligation of the Federal government to step in and provide the necessary aid. Even with some delay in calling for FEMA, FEMA should have had a more realistic view of what was going on and been better prepared to handle this particular emergency, which many people have predicted for decades.

Ultimately, the reason that climate change is such a big problem is that its effects are unpredictable. Governments are not fast enough to react to unanticipated disasters, as evidenced by Katrina, because they don't have crisis plans ready to put into action. Combine a many sided die and very poor coverage of the possible outcomes, and it is very likely that global climate change could cause not just one but several national and international emergencies in the coming years.

Re:When will the denials stop?

[TapeCutter]

"That, of course, has yet to be proven."

Depends on what your definition of "proven" is. The certainty in the attribution of the total of all significant +/- forcings is 90% or higher (ref: 2007 IPCC-SPM, figure SPM-2). The forcings attributed to humans outweighs all other forcings combined. ie: It is 90% certain that humas are responsible for greater than 50% of the total warming effect obserevd.

Note that the IPCC is by it's nature a conservative document, as it should be when 2500 "scientists agree". This means that at very best there is a 10% chance humans are not the cause and as each day passes with no viable alternative explaination combined with data sets that continue to improve, the certainty will increase.

Having said that, it is true the cause is not as certain as the observed warming itself but like all scientific concepts the idea will never be "proven", the best we can hope for is "virtually certain", eg: it is "virtually certain" the sun will rise in the morning but not "absolutely certain".

Re:When will the denials stop?

[Doc Ruby]

"Global Cooling" is a BS red herring that only Greenhouse deniers like you take "seriously".
SARS is still a serious threat of epidemic, after killing thousands where it has spread in China.
Bird flu is an even greater epidemic threat, already starting to kill dozens of humans where it has spread in SE Asia/Pacific, and thousands of birds now starting to be found in Europe.
Mad cow disease has killed people and is still a threat, even though many thousands of cattle have been destroyed to stop it due to regulation.
Overpopulation and mass starvation continue to kill/abuse millions in Africa, Asia and South America.

Smog has caused asthma among millions of people and many other health problems, even though it has been largely checked by regulation.
Acid rain destroyed lots of trees and public art before being largely checked by regulation.
Ozone depletion and skin cancer is still a serious problem, even though it's been checked by regulation.

Those last few, atmospheric pollution problems, are the most representative. Each of them was faced with the kind of arrogant, ignorant scoffing you still push on them, despite their having been proven manmade and stoppable without the kind of doom you people always say will ensue if regulations stop it. So thank you for making the point that despite many successes in identifying real disasters, then waiting for industry to stop based on just education, then actually regulating them to save ourselves from global pollution, we still face loud ignorant yapping from people like you who ignore science and history.

It's too bad we have to save the denial addicts like you as we save ourselves, but that's what "global" means. You're welcome.

Re:When will the denials stop?

[anagama]

Would a Democrat Tree Hugger leave the heat turned on and notice that he's responsible for it being hot?

Yes. That was the point of the analogy -- the "tree hugger" upon recognizing his complicity in being uncomfortable, takes reasonable steps to minimize that discomfort. And of course, the warming deniers are largely from the right wing. If you feel it makes the right wing look foolish, well, that was the point. If you don't want to look like clowns, take off the squeeky noses.

Re:When will the denials stop?

[fucksl4shd0t]

Heh, I'll bite.

My main issue with this global warming thing isn't the scientific fervor, it's the political ball it's become. You see, the scientific fervor, imo, derives from the way scientists are generally treated by politicians and businessmen. If you're a scientist, and your research indicates someone will or should stop making money, or that potentially unpopular laws should be passed, you're hated by the powers that be. So I suspect something of a martyr syndrome going through the scientific community over this, and am willing to disregard hysterics from the scientific community for that reason.

However, they are smart people who know what they're talking about. They could be wrong, but I don't really see how any of the recommended measures, if taken incrementally to make the money-grubbing politicians and blood-sucking lawyers happy, will be bad for us on the whole. We get more efficient technology out of the deal, significant technological advances, and serious improvements in living conditions in exchange for what? Recognizing we might be capable of trashing our planet? Sounds good to me!

But what really irks me is the way politicians are playing the science card and trying to manipulate the scientific community. The damage we might suffer on the whole as a result of the fight is imo far greater than the damage we might cause to ourselves via global warming.

Re:When will the denials stop?

[A beautiful mind]

I can't decide whether your post is a good example of subtle sarcasm or whether you're really are serious. I'm kinda hoping it's sarcasm.

Re:When will the denials stop?

[Capsaicin]

This recent article linking cosmic rays and global warming is the start.

This has already been debunked I'm afraid.

Re:When will the denials stop?

[Capsaicin]

Remind me... are these the same scientists, or different ones, that attested with equal certainty as to human activity causing Global Cooling?

Different ones. Also there were a handful of climatologists calling cooling (judging by the infamous Newsweek article, I still have not been shown a peer-reviewd paper arguing cooling), almost the entire profession agree that we are facing a warming trend, plus that it is man-made.

See this is how it works. In the 70s a handful of climatologists (contra the mainstream of the profession) argued for global cooling. In the 90s a handful of climatologists (contra the mainstream) argued that Global Warming was not occuring. In both these instances the mainstream of the profession was proved correct.

Re:When will the denials stop?

[edwardpickman]

Well at least you're quitting the job as the President's science adviser.

Re:When will the denials stop?

[digitalchinky]

I usually concur with your comments on most subjects Doc and have modded you up a number of times, though in this case I'm no denial addict, though to me it would seem like you are inflating (or just making up counter claims to) the points that previous posters have made in favor of the current mass opinion of the day.

I live in Asia, and out of a few billion people in this region less than 200 people have died from avian bird flu. Source WHO.
Am I concerned. No.

Mad Cow Disease, if the farmers stopped feeding their cows shitty food, maybe it wouldn't be such a problem.

Fully agree with you on overpopulation (in Asia, don't know anything about Africa), except for the part about millions dying. Plenty living under the poverty lines here, though in general for the majority they scrape by, just with a higher rate of illness than the norm.

SARS, WHO doesn't seem to have any data beyond 2004, though the total number appears to be less than 1000 deaths. While technically 'thousands of deaths' may be accurate, amongst the rational populace one might prefer to say one or two thousand total.

Re:When will the denials stop?

[Metasquares]

They drive and you collect while the whole world goes to pot.

Yep, that pretty much summarizes the situation.

Re:When will the denials stop?

[Doc Ruby]

Y'know, I worked on a couple of real Y2K projects. We replaced a couple of systems that would have cracked up on 1/1/2000, losing the corporations $millions, and in one case possibly interfering with patients receiving healthcare on time. But we fixed it. As did thousands of other geeks and managers working worldwide. Including several here in NYC I knew personally working on essential infrastructure on which many lives depended, and other people we knew nationwide working on essential realtime systems like transit control, etc.

But since we did a good job, minimizing damage to a negligible amount, lots of people today believe the Y2K bug was a hoax to stretch the Tech Bubble another year.

If farmers stopped feeding their cows "shitty food" (cows), Mad Cow would probably subside. But they aren't stopping.

Epidemics start with a few people. Bird flu is a very serious risk of pandemic. If we don't nip it in the bud, and prepare to cope with any resulting collapse, we will see extreme damage. There's no flu hysteria: the actual risk is certainly proportional to the amount of planning and mitigation underway. SARS was an actual epidemic in China, distinguished by extremely rapid spread under cover of official denial. Until the denial was broken and countermeasures reduced both the rate of infection and its mortality rate. SARS might have been beaten, which we'd expect to do to such a dangerous threat, but if we don't reform our denial systems (China's government has officially apologized for its denial and slowness), it will happen again, maybe SARS or maybe some other disease, and maybe with less success. Maybe even to the tipping point of permanent stability incubated in a global population. AIDS is a case in point.

African overpopulation underlies millions dead prematurely there over the past couple of centuries. Overpopulation without social, political or technical mitigation has overbalanced the continent into position for a collapse from Climate change that will make Rwanda look like Little Big Horn.

But of course those are just variously proportionate responses to variously strong risks, that the OP was denying en masse. As if there are no risks, just because they live in a society which usually recognizes expensive risks and minimizes/mitigates them evn if they don't notice. Especially with their head buried in the sand.

You want to talk about hysteria, let's talk about terrorism. Let's talk about the paranoia about meteorite annihilation, which is just propaganda to fund Star Wars.

Climate change is real. Citing all those atmospheric pollution problems we've mitigated is like citing Y2K. Denying it out of ignorance and fear might play with other ignorant, fearful people. But the science and history of similar cases of "Chicken Little" being right about the actual sky actually falling demand we come to grips with it. And with our society's irrational denial reactions. And with our inclination to deny these other extreme risks in our global civilization living increasingly closer to the edge.

Re:When will the denials stop?

[ArcherB]

But, with these issues, measures where taken to make sure things didn't spread etc, couldn't it have been that many of these measures, you know, WORKED?

Well, that's the Catch-22 we all face. If global warming wipes out man-kind as many have suggested, or at least a large portion of it, many will say, "See, we told you so but you wouldn't listen. Now see what YOU did." Even if all forms of energy are banned, you'll say, "YOU waited too long and now it's too late. YOU should've listened!" Of course, any theories that global warming is a natural form of climate change (change, meaning warmer or cooler, it has to go one way or the other!) will be rejected outright.

On the other hand, if disaster doesn't strike and global warming is no big deal, then people like you will pay yourselves on the back saying, "Good thing we sounded the alarm or we'd all be dead now. Good job everyone!"

Re:When will the denials stop?

[Coryoth]

You know 65,000 years is nothing on a planetary scale.

Two things should be mentioned here. The first is that the OP missed a zero. It is 650,000 years. Secondly, while that may be very small in comparison to the earth's history of some 6.5 billion years, it is quite a lot in comparison to the history of modern humans (only around 200,000 years). Sure things have been different in the past, but then the world was a dramatically different place in the past. What we should concern ourselves with is the environment that the current flora and fauna of the planet are adapted to - because if it changes too fast then some of those species won't manage to adapt to cope swiftly enough. Worse still 650,000 years is a positively massive amount of time compared to human history as settled farming species (around 10,000 years). Shifting climate bands can have a significant impact on where feasible growing areas are, and shifting massive farming infrastructure is not a trivial thing.

Second Life

[realmolo]

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.

Peru is not the only one in trouble

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Global Warming

[Citizen of Earth]

On the subject of Global Warming, allow me to be the first Canadian to say YES, YES, AWESOME, FUCK YEAH!

Re:Global Warming

[Kenshin]

Question: Do you really want the Americans moving HERE when it gets too hot?

As long as they think it's snowing all year round here, we're mostly safe from them.

Re:Global Warming

[Climate Shill]

On the subject of Global Warming, allow me to be the first Canadian to say YES, YES, AWESOME, FUCK YEAH! Say, that's some nice climate you have there buddy ! And only a few hours tank drive away !

Re:Global Warming

[Ubergrendle]

A few comments...

Something like 80% of Canada's population lives within 100km of the border with the US. We're very happy with our neighbours thankyouverymuch. The elect idiot presidents sometimes, but they don't get to see our parliament up close and personal... thank goodness.

Also, given that most of the northern US states are several hundred kilometers north of Ontario's Golden Horseshoe (where 1/3 of Canada's population lives, mainly around Toronto), they have lots of cold places to visit themselves. Oh, and the US has Alaska too.

Overall, Canada has a small population, huge reserves of natural resources, and the largest supply of fresh water in the world. Global Warming probably affects us less than most other countries...except for our arctic tundra eco system and the livelihood of the Innu. I'll callously say that this is a small impact per capita, although the impact felt by the Innu is huge.

Re:influx of mountain stream fresh water

[nebosuke]

Glaciers help to trap more water during the winter than would otherwise remain in the area, and regulate its dispersal.

To imagine the first part of the above, imagine, for a moment, a bank account. Initialy you are just skimming off the interest on the principal. At some point, however, you start dipping into the principal itself. While a portion of the principal remains, you will be receiving more cash than you were while you were just drawing on the interest. When it runs out, however, you no longer have any principle generating interest

The second part is equally important. Do you want your water supply for the year to come down in regular, year-round melt water or a brief flash flood following each significant precipitation event?

Re:NOT a problem for the water supply

[callmetheraven]

Yes, the total amount of runoff yearly will be the same, but if the glacier disappears, and there is no winter snow accumulation, there will be reduced runoff during warm dry months of summer, just like here in Montana. Winter snowpack accumulation/meltoff is crucial for year-round water supply in some climates.

Re:Emerging from an ice age will have that effect

[marimbaman]

Nice work selectively citing the minority of papers that support your position. Most climate scientists not funded by Big Oil will tell you that we are indeed altering the balance of the Earth.

Oh and, even if you believe global warming is a natural phenomenon, you should still be worried. After all, whatever wiped out the dinosaurs was also a natural phenomenon.

http://xkcd.com/c164.html

Anonymous cowards

[alshithead]

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.

Re:What isn't being said?

[MarkRose]

Wikipedia actually has an article full of data regarding exactly that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_s ince_1850 . If you don't believe what's written in the article, check out the references. The global conclusions are quite clear.

Re:What isn't being said?

[GaryPatterson]

You posit that some glaciers are advancing, but this is unreported.

Why do you suspect this? How do you know? Is it likely that there aren't any glaciers advancing?

I've never heard anything to back up your position, so it seems like you're trying to sow some doubt here without any evidence behind you. I'm happy to debate, but you've got to bring something to the table.

A bit odd

[93 Escort Wagon]

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.

Re:A bit odd

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

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.

You haven't thought that through.

Even tho' tropical areas are likely to see a smaller temperature difference than a sub tropical or artic, they're also much more sensitive to said change. According to Real Climate's Tropical Glacier Retreat Page:

Generally speaking, lower glaciers which extend below the elevation where above-freezing air temperatures occur, are more sensitive to temperature. [Kaser and Osmaston 2002] calculate that such tropical glaciers are even more temperature-sensitive than midlatitude glaciers. A warming of 1 degree C is sufficient to raise the equilibrium line (below which net ablation occurs) by fully 300 meters. As we've already seen, warming is by no means unimportant to the 20th century retreat of the Lewis glacier (Mt. Kenya) in E. Africa. In other cases, the role of warming is yet more clear.

Re:What isn't being said?

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

But there are also glaciers nearby that are advancing instead of receding.

Can you back up that statement with a link, or did you just pull some highly speculative piece of bullshit out of your ass?

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.

Fucking retarded. TFA talked about other glaciers & a few seconds research would have lead you to Tropical Glacier Retreat analysis.

Throughout the Tropics, glaciers are in retreat. Well-documented examples include Quelccaya [Thompson, et al. 1993], Huascaran [Byers, 2000; Kaser and Osmaston,2002], Zongo and Chacaltaya [Francou,et al 2003; Wagnon et al. 1999] in S. America; and the Lewis, Rwenzori and Kilimanjaro (more properly, Kibo) glaciers in East Africa [Hastenrath, 1984; Kaser and Osmaston, 2002]. There have been indications of widespread retreat of Himalayan glaciers, including Dasuopu in the subtropics, but a quantitative understanding of this region must await peer-reviewed analysis of the recently completed 46000-glacier Chinese Glacier Inventory.

In short, you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about.

You're missing something

[knorthern knight]

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?

Attitudes Towards Dissent

[Shihar]

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.

Does it even matter if the globe is warming?

[ddoctor]

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.

Re:Does it even matter if the globe is warming?

[Smuffe]

Mass extinctions? Overpopulation?

I was under the impression that these two cancel each other out?

Re:Does it even matter if the globe is warming?

[mike2R]

But you miss the BIG PICTURE - MAN is evil, and more importantly CAPITALISM is unnatural and the USS are the Great Satan!

sigh.. do you always form your judgements on an idea based on the opinions of it's nuttiest supporters. Yes there are vocal people who believe pretty much what you say - given that you don't respect their opinions (who does?) why do you let them influence your thinking on this issue?

It's like saying open source is made by evil anarchists because some idiot teenager DOSed SCO's website.

Just a natural phenomenon

[Ace905]

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?

Re:What isn't being said?

[LarsWestergren]

So if they've been retreating since 1850, how are cars to blame?

Climate has always gone through fluctuations, what is frightening now is the how much bigger the change is, and how quickly it happens. I don't know how many times we have to explain this.

The world has been warming way longer than cars have been around.

Greenhouse gas emissions have been around longer than cars, it has been inceasing steadily since the start of the Industrial Revolution.

I'm tired of all this bullshit about our generation killing the Earth.

Being tired of it is not a rational argument for whether it is true or not. Sorry.

Re:Humans

[Alioth]

Actually, it's not the planet we should worry about. If we annihilated ourselves tomorrow in a nuclear war, the planet would shrug it off. If we burned every ounce of oil in two weeks, the planet would shrug it off. In 500 million years time, the Earth would still be there, just without humans.

We aren't trying to protect the planet - we are trying to protect ourselves. Concern about global warming is nothing to do with saving the planet, it has everything to do with saving ourselves.

If our technological and industrial society is to survive, we have to address these issues and make sure we still have a relatively cheap energy source that doesn't (long term) threaten the existence of that society. If, through hubris, we allow this society to collapse, there cannot be another industrial revolution for a few hundred million years - because all of the easy-to-get-at resources have been used up: the low hanging fruit of easy to get coal and oil has gone - you now need a technologically advanced society to actually exploit these. We have one chance at surviving long term, otherwise humanity will be doomed to a Middle Ages style existence until it finally dies out.

The planet on the other hand doesn't need saving. The sun has another 5 billion years of main sequence, and the Earth will shrug anything off. However, our society cannot do the same. _All_ concern at doing things to not pollute the environment is not for the purpose of 'saving the planet', it's for the purpose of 'saving human civilization'!

Epithets

[Garrett Fox]

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.

Where does this say agriculture?

[mdsolar]

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

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-users -selling-solar.html