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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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: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.

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: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'!