Slashdot Mirror
New Photos Show 'Devastating' Ice Loss On Everest
Simmeh writes "The BBC reports on new photos of the Himalayas taken from exactly the same position as ones from 1929 and compares the ice coverage. The Asia Society, which did the groundwork, are quoted as saying, 'If the present rate of melting continues, many of these glaciers will be severely diminished by the middle of this century.' I guess the previous claim wasn't too unrealistic."
Let me ask something slightly different. Is bacteria actually capable of changing the properties of something as huge as man? Oh wait, thats very different, my bad!
When it comes to size you have to stop thinking about the Earth, 12,752km diameter, and think about the atmosphere, 90% within 50km of surface.
Could humans make an impact, yes. The CO2 increase since the start of the industrial revolution shows that.
Is that the main cause of climate change? That is what the real arguments are about.
If Humans are to blame is it too late to do anything? Don't know, don't care. Its been done.
Humanity will need to adapt to climate change or it'll die out, just like everything else on the planet.
"Denialists"? Are you talking about people that deny the Holocaust happened or objective, independent people that question whether man is to blame for "global warming"?
Denalism is by no means limited to Holocaust denial. Along with AIDS denialism, flat-earthism, tobacco denialism and AGW denialism, holocaust denial is merely a species of denialism. For it to be classified as denialism (as opposed to scepticism, for instance), it must involve the outright refusal to accept an empirically verifiable reality, as we can witness with both Holocaust or AGW denial.
Denialism also refers to a set of rhetorical strategies used to create the impression of uncertainty where none exists. Unsurprisingly perhaps, these bear a strong resemblance across the various species of denialism.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
Since it's inevitable that this will devolve into a bunch of AGW/anti-AGW trolling, let's get our facts straight.
No one with any knowledge about the subject is disputing that climates change. The disputed points are that human-produced carbon dioxide is or is not a significant factor, that Al Gore does or does not have any clue what he's blabbing about, and that the green movement does or does not constitute anything more than lies and snake oil.
Anthropogenic or not, climate change is a serious issue which affects the future of our species. The people who support (or object to) AGW by chanting an entrenched position over and over, and the people selling us snake oil as a "fix" are NOT helping. In fact, they're probably selling the future of humanity off in order to make a quick buck off of people who get their science from Twitter and Fox News.
Slinging around words like "denialist" doesn't help a damn thing either. Have we forgotten Godwin's Law so quickly?
With that said, the "before and after" photo trick is extremely passe. It is good for gulling the public, but little more since you only have two data points and are doing absolutely nothing to control for any of numerous confounding factors. It doesn't tell you crap about local conditions (pollution? construction? traffic? did someone just set off dynamite as an anti-avalanche measure?). It doesn't tell you about shorter-term cycles of climate variation (what's normal? was it unusually heavy in the "before" photo? was there more or less pollution historically? what about solar cycles?). It doesn't tell you about the cause of the climate trend if any exists, and it absolutely does not tell you a single bloody thing about the global situation.
Nor is this "incontrovertible" proof all that clear. The saturation in the 1921 photo is such that it is very hard to compare the two photos directly; you would need to analyze each in detail including examining the depth in a given area, the seasonal and longer-term variations, the characteristics of the camera and film used in either photo...the list goes on. The "experts say" line is a bullshit maneuver pulled by journalists in order to make their craptastic statements of absolute truth seem like they have some authority behind them - in reality, it usually means that the journalist is aware that they don't have the means to back up what they're claiming. Three huzzahs for the terrible state of science journalism, eh? FUD and misinformation and more FUD is all you can expect.
why is it when I point to localised evidence of cooling as proof AGW is bullshit, AGW supporters give me a line about global temps being the only valid data. but when there's some local event like ice melting on a mountain, it's considered rockhard evidence by AGW supporters?!
Because you are trying to use anecdote in place of data. These people place anecdotes in the context of data.
i'll tell you why. it's because most of popular climate change "science" isn't worth the paper it's printed on, and it's agenda is run by hypocrites.
No. It's because you suffer from cognitive dissonance, and any evidence that clashes with your current world view merely reinforces it. In other words, you are walking case example of neuroscience at work.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
I really don't know the answer to how much of climate change is man-made. I tend to think that it's possible we have had some impact, but I can't say to what degree. However, I do have a few thoughts on the matter:
Even if our impact on climate is minimal to none, we certainly do have impact on our habitats and environments. Even if we aren't creating a greenhouse effect, I think it's a very good idea to pursue renewable resources and cleaner living so that we can prevent discomfort, health problems, and harming ecosystems (that again might have long term and indirect impacts on us all). I may doubt that a household can shit enough on their lawn in order to make it uninhabitable, but I think they can make it unpleasant and unhealthy.
You say that it is hubris to suggest we could have an impact on the environment. I say it is hubris to think that we are so smart that we won't screw things up by accident. Not only that, it's in contradiction to history. By accident (or unintentional side-effects), we have created acid rain, we have brought many species to the verge of extinction (without even including those that may be victims of climate change), we have caused diseases and birth defects, we have ruined ecosystems, and we have many small areas uninhabitable. You question whether all the industry and waste of the world in modern times combined could have a negative impact on our environment by accident, when single industrial facilities in one city have been proven to be able to greatly harm local environments by accident.
There may be a question of whether we are doing it, but I honestly do not think there is any question of whether we could. I guarantee we could (if we tried), and it's in the realm of possibility that we might without even trying.
Man has split the atom, left our planet and returned, and mapped code of life. We have imagined strange and amazing things, and then have proven them to exist millions of light years away. We are currently researching ways to not only build artificial intelligence, but even recreating the spark of life itself, and the most incredible thing is that we've gotten to the point that those possibilities don't even seem absurd anymore! Man has done great and terrible things. We will very likely continue to do so.
I don't think you give man enough credit in what we accomplish, or how badly we can botch things.
Take a respected science publication. Take "Nature" if you wish. From 2008. Count how many of the reputable, scientific publications there have been contradicted since then. 3000 pages of science without mistakes, without errors are not 3000 pages of up-to-date science. Having just two mistakes in the report is actually incredible. I am sure we will find more, this is an ongoing work. Misquotes, honest but dumb errors, happen to very good scientists. Being a top scientist doesn't mean you don't make mistake, but that you correct them when they are pointed out, even if it means questioning your basic premises.
Does the errors about glaciers ice loss question the existence of climate change ? No. Was this ever considered ? Hell yes. Actually, when one reads the actual IPCC report, you would see that it is far from alarming. I used to be a "soft denier" when I discovered that much of my claims were already there. The rise is small and slow, the link to human activity is credible but a lot of uncertainty factors are underlined, the rise being a long term natural cycle is not ruled out, etc...
The warming is not an invention. First measures apparently were a bit too high and over-estimated the rise. They have been corrected since and a rise is still present. I pity climatologists. They are trying to do good science in a very heavy political context. That must be very hard.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
At least those will be equal opportunity changes since Mother Nature and the Universe don't discriminate when it comes time to bring the pain to those unworthy to survive.
You mean the poor farmer in Bangladesh will experience the same hardship from sea level rise than a Miami millionaire? One loses his livelihood and the other has to move his yacht pier up 3 feet - yes, that seems about the same.
More generally, rich people are generally much better isolated from any environmental changes, and also in a much better position to exploit them. Assume the Dutch have to rebuild their dikes - do you really think that most of the money spent will go to the guy who drives the backhoe?
Stephan
Okay let's see you "go first". Become an early adopter of the post-AGW lifestyle.
First thing : dump your computer, your car, your tv, your telephone. There's just no way that we can have personal computers, cars, or even normal phones (pray you get to keep your cell phone, and forget about smartphones) using only renewable resources. Not going to happen.
Oh and obviously the human population will have to be decimated, even if you do actually give those things up. Forget about birth control, which only has effect after 60 years or-so, assuming you can enforce it globally (assuming, to be blunt, that every nation on earth is prepared to kill "unapproved" babies), which is "too late". So who do we kill ?
Mind you, we'll need to lose somewhere between 60% and 90% of all humans alive. Who do we start with ? To keep in the theme of this thread, perhaps the Jews ? Of course atheists, christians, muslims, hindus and buddhists, even slashdotters won't be far behind. This 60% merely makes "living renewably" an attainable goal, btw, it does not, at all, guarantee we actually do accomplish it.
There are 2 things we can do :
1) attempt to stop climate change
2) ignore it, adapt to changing circumstances, and grow
EVERY species that has chosen option 1, and every human civilization that has done so (according to Jared Diamond) is ...
extinct
(and one can easily name dozens of species and civilizations that have attempted to preserve their environment ... all extinct)
It does not work.
Of course, when there is a climate conference, there is a solar eclipse generated by the amount of private planes converging. So we all know what the politicians and scientists (everyone who goes to such conferences) want ...
Of course, we "have science" so we can do anything, right ? (of course, half of those extinct civilizations did have science too, most had quite extensive agricultural and climatic knowledge. It didn't save them. Why would it save us ?)
These are some pretty big straw men "OeLeWaPpErKe".
Your scare tactics aren't going to make scientists out of AGW deniers. Nor is the decision of a single person going to make much difference fighting climate change. But there are systemic changes that could be made right now without displacing millions or causing you to give up your iPhone.
And maybe you don't realize how easy it is for those of us that live in big cities to give up our cars or at least to think about what it would take for us to spend fewer of our waking hours behind the wheel. Nor do you appear to understand how much of a benefit it would be for you to give up your TV. It might keep you off of Fox News long enough for you to be deprogrammed.
Are you saying that giving up Science would help us avoid extinction? Now you're scaring me.
Please name the civilizations that have become extinct after attempting to prevent climate change due to profligate use of fossil fuels.
You are welcome on my lawn.