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."
I guess the question is.. why should I care? IMO people who climb mountains have mental issues anyway and I certainly don't care how much ice is on the mountain.
I vote for installing a nice enclosed and heated handicapped accessible moving sidewalk to take everyone up to a viewing station and tourist trap on top the mountain. If I can't eat a cheeseburger at the end of the Universe then I should at least be able to eat one on top of the world.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
You are a fucking LYER. None -NONE- of what you say has any basis in truth. FOLKS, check it out before you mod the parent "insightfuL" because in fact it is hog wash.
You have as much credibility as those who deny the fact of evolution.
Seriously dude. What's it like to be so arrogantly ignorant, and so gullible that you swallow the same bullshit from the same bullshit artists that brought you (literally funded by the same people) that cigarette smoking is healthy and doesn't cause cancer (from the 50's)?
The fact that tens of thousands of scientists the world over, across disciplines, examining independent data, all come to the same conclusion... you reject their findings as some sort of global, multi-national conspiracy of lies. Yet you belive hook, line, and sinker the conclusions of fossil-fuel-funded 'think tanks', and side with Glenn Beck on this issue? Really?
That's just sad and pathetic. And really not something you should be broadcasting.
Interesting definitions. I'll add two more for you:
Warmist: The overwhelming weight of the evidence shows C, so any data that contradicts C must be wrong.
Scientist: My fundamental hypothesis is predicated on C, so any data that contradicts C invalidates my hypothesis.
All too often, we forget science is the ruthless application of skepticism to one's *own* ideas.
My fear is that nothing they come up with works as ultimately you cannot fight the Sun and Earth's natural cycles and all the blame will be set upon carbon.
My fear is that we succeed in getting atmospheric CO2 levels to drop, accelerating the spread of the deserts. Or worse, the severe stunting of agricultural plants.
CO2 is not a pollutant: it is food for all photosynthesizing organisms, and thus indirectly for us. Even though non-photosynthesizing organisms produce CO2, all are net CO2 sinks (exhibit A: limestone). CO2 is currently around 300ppm. It does not become a problem for humans until around 10000ppm (1%), and then it causes only drowsiness. 80000ppm(8%) is getting rather problematic, though (wikipedia). Atmospheric levels haven't been above 7000ppm for hundreds of millions of years.
If CO2 causes global warming (this is in no way proven yet), then at worst we lose some coastlines. Glaciers melting might be a good thing: that's a lot of water locked up in ice that would be better off in rivers and lakes. Glacial growth is an interruption in the water cycle.
I want my kids to be able to eat. If they have to move to higher ground and/or fight of other people to survive, so be it.
Bill - aka taniwha
--
Leave others their otherness. -- Aratak
Do you really think it takes too much arrogance to imagine that a single man can alter 13,7 football fields within his lifetime through farming, mining, driving, building, etc.?
As opposed to the sun which has a surface area of 6088000000000 Km^2 ?
That's 887 Km^2/habitant, or 164,377 of your "real international standards units" (football fields).
Do you really think it takes too much arrogance to imagine that the variations in radiation from a superheated ball of gas at 5505C (9941F) might, just possibly, have some bearing on the situation ?
Sadly, the world is run by people with "belief" in something they can't solidly describe/verify... so it's par for the course.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
"Along with"? More like "instead of".
Diverge in what direction? Downward right?
Besides, whether it was a decline in temperature or decline in reliability, they had no business hiding it. They wouldn't accept such a practice if it had been done by an oil company. They should have just plotted the full proxy data including the known unreliable parts along with the thermometer data in a different color. Then we all would have known immediately of the unreliability of the proxy data. But they didn't because they knew that if we could see that the proxy data was unreliable and giving falsely low temps for the last 50 years, then nobody would have given the proxies any credibility a thousand years ago.
I didn't have time to expound on the subject in depth. And I think it does refer to a decline in temperature.
How do you know his house is not there on the left? Maybe that is is MOTHERFUCKING back yard?
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Here is a list of many studies showing evidence of MWP around the globe. The wikipedia article you cite is biased toward Mann. It even prominently displays the MBH hockey stick graph! See this for an explanation of what's wrong with the hockey stick graph.
Wow. Learn to read, douche.
How exactly do you think society is going to adapt to higher energy prices that come about as a result of a forced switch to clean energy? Growth isn't exactly the word that comes to mind. When you increase the price of electricity ten-fold, people will be forced to downsize. If you don't see that, you are living in fantasy land. Just how much energy do you think is required to move the food you eat into those big cities? How much energy do you burn keeping warm in the winters? How much energy is used in the south to keep cool in the summer (and winter, in some places!)? You just assume that anyone who talks about the economic impacts of massive government interventions in energy markets has some right-wing agenda. This is about economics. Turn off your political theology and think about the impact of what you are advocating.
He isn't saying we should "give up science". You accuse him of putting up a straw man, and then turn around and pull out one of your own. Hypocrite. He's saying that resisting change is the path to destruction. The Mayans thought they could combat climate change by cutting people's hearts out. According to the Malthusians, they were correct. It didn't save them, though. Similar stories occurred throughout the New World prior to colonization. Similarly, numerous Mesopotamian cultures were wiped out by climate change, much of it produced by humans, via the salinization of their soil from hundreds of years of irrigation. The solution was never to stop growing food. The solution is simple crop rotation. Etc, etc.
I mean, Christ, you take his example of resisting change and demand that he produce examples of civilizations that have been destroyed under the exact same circumstances. The circumstances are always going to vary, but the situation remains the same. Those who accept change and adapt survive, those who attempt to point a gun (or a sword) at the earth and command it not to change perish.
Also interesting is the fact that you can't see the gun in your own hand, nor can you hear yourself demanding the impoverishment of the world when you call for the use of government force to intervene in the energy markets. I bet you'd never even want to be near a gun, but you just love it when big groups of people use them to enforce whatever silly ideas pop into your head upon the populace. I wonder if you will like it so much when the guys with government guns come knocking on your door?