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."
But won't this make it easier for AGW denialists to climb Everest?
We needed something to put the kegs in to stay cold.
We needed something epic.
There's a spot in User Info for World of Warcraft account names? Really?
Conspiracy theories and scientific hypes aside, is man actually capable of changing the properties of something as huge as planet Earth? Or, in other words, can we stop this even if we want to? Earth will continue changing as it will continue rotating, and we might as well take our minds off what we cannot change and work a little bit more on what we can, i.e. the misery of mankind.
So we have a few photographs and the conclusion that the ice loss is devastating--despite no investigation as to whether the photographs were taken during the same day of the year nor as to what the internal variability is. But still, the editors immediately jump to the ice loss is devastating and that the mid-century prediction of the AR4 is right after all.
Nonsense, the glaciers are monitored very closely and the loss-rates are calculated to be very slow. The AR4 prediction was, of course, the center of a big scandal because it was basically a fabrication, whereas the actual science is deep and gives several hundred years.
About 10k years ago, there was glacier over a mile thick right where I am sitting.
Must have been all those SUV driving woolly mammoth bastards!
The first in mid-winter? The second high-summer? We don't know. And that is exactly the problem. Every time some alarmist 'scientist' comes with this kind of 'evidence' they leave something out. We just cannot trust these guys anymore...
TFA doesn't mention anything about the time of year each of the pictures was taken. It also ignores the fact that some glaciers seem to be growing in the Himalayas
http://news.discovery.com/earth/himalayas-glaciers-shrink.html
I don't know about the credibility of this report. Maybe the glaciers are melting because of human CO2, maybe they would have melted anyway, or maybe they aren't even melting. But when the supposedly respected Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change made that mistake in their report where they claimed the Himilayan glaciers would melt by 2035, it exposed more than a simple mistake. It showed that for their report, the IPCC didn't do what you would expect, which is thoroughly scrutinize what they cited. Nor did they look over what they cited to see if it was reasonable. No, they didn't bother with all that. They didn't even check to see if the evidence they cited about the effects of global warming EVEN EXISTED.
The entire climate science community has defended "Mike's Nature trick" to "hide the decline" so that people wouldn't see how bad their evidence is, instead of criticizing the hiding of results that cast major doubt on their evidence. None of them have any credibility left, and will never get it back until they condemn instead of defend "Mike's Nature trick".
My criticism of climate science on Slashdot are routinely the target of moderator abuse, so watch the down moded comments for good stuff.
Nepal's power is run from hydro installed by the Russians many years ago. The generators are on the rivers that contain run-off from the Himalayas. I used to live there ('99-'01) and there was enough problems with lack of water then for us to have many brown outs. But lately, friends over there have been telling me that the power has been out for weeks on end, with hospitals, etc, having to constantly run their diesel generators, increasing the already excessive amount of pollution in the air, especially around Kathmandu. They've been saying that it's because the rivers have had hardly any water in them, which is caused by the decreasing amount of ice on the mountains.
Oh right, you're one of those deniers I've heard abou;, who requires evidence before he'll believe. Behold the power of faith, my friend, and you don't need evidence! (hopefully my sarcasm is evident...)
Yes, there are people who study these things, and who get research grants to do so. Grants that in NO WAY influence the conclusions of such research? Reducing use of fossil fuels is a noble cause, but using AGW as the reason is akin to telling a teenage boy to stop what he's doing because he's gonna go blind!
I need trepanation like I need a hole in the head.
So we have a few photographs and the conclusion that the ice loss is devastating--despite no investigation as to whether the photographs were taken during the same day of the year nor as to what the internal variability is. But still, the editors immediately jump to the ice loss is devastating....
Glaciers do not change much with the seasons. Ever heard of things moving "at glacier pace"? Normal movements are in inches. What we see on the photos are differences in miles. No way you can explain that by spring versus fall! This glacier did melt.
Furthermore just as with most other Warmist alarm-filled propaganda, they give no hard data
As opposed to the climate change deniers who release 900 page reports reviewed by the elite of the world scientific community with only 1 or 2 mistakes in them ?
Hmm, actually, no. Its the "Warmists" who are releasing the hard data, its the deniers who are a lunatic propaganda followers with a "Flat earth society" culture.
Get a grip
To visually compare the images properly, the color image needs to be turned into grayscale, and the two images need to be cut so that they can be properly superimposed. When this is done, the loss is a bit less impressive, but still noticeable in the valley if not on the mountains.
Dude, get off your high horse for a moment and check out the photographic exhibition website where they say that we are talking about 100m (actually they say "320 vertical feet") of ice that's been lost in Rongbuk glacier. That's a lot of ice, and is far more than anything attributable to seasonality.
http://sites.asiasociety.org/riversofice/comparative-photography
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.
It should also be noted that the 2350 figure is for ALL the ice to melt. Considering roughly a quater of the world's population rely on these glaciers for water there will be severe consequences well before it's all gone.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Yes glaciers are not seasonal. The author invites us to conclude that everything in the old picture is glacier. That's just not necessarily so, and that's why its important to understand what the normal variability in snow cover is for the particular slopes in view.
They can change relatively rapidly with some human help. Either shrinking or in the following cases growing:
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/4932332-indian-engineer-builds-glaciers-to-fight-climate-change
As of this year he has built 10 artificial glaciers, using a simple system of pipes and stone dams to pool and direct streams of water into heavily shaded parts of valleys above a given village. During winter the pools become thick ice masses - frozen water tanks for farmers who need reliable summer flows as a hedge against changing weather patterns.
The first one he built was in 1987; it is now two kilometers long and provides supplemental water to four villages. "In four months you can have one million cubic feet of ice," said Norphel, who won a CNN-IBN "Real Heroes" Award in 2008 for his work.
http://www.umb.no/statisk/noragric/publications/master/2007_ingvar_tveiten.pdf
Quote:
People in the districts of Baltistan and Gilgit practice 'glacier growing' with the intention of
making glaciers that will enhance water availability. This is done by carrying glacier ice from
a naturally occurring glacier up to elevations over 4000 m a.s.l., where it is placed in a dug
out cave in a scree-slope. Apart from the ice, gourds containing water are also added to
interior of the cave. Then a layer of charcoal, and sawdust or wheat husks is put on top of the
ice. The workers close off the cave by piling up rocks to cover the entrance.
I think you mean "as opposed to the denialists who release petitions with 30,000 names on them, of whom 29,900 either have no scientific expertise in climate change, or flat-out deny that they signed the petition."
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
Compared to those photos, I find your unsourced blog comments to be much more compelling evidence.
They even took the same photo from the same spot...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7895611/Photos-show-dramatic-shrinking-of-Mount-Everest-glaciers.html
We have a lot more than a few photographs supporting this. The worldwide retreat of glaciers is well established and is know to acutely affect the Himalayas, potentially threatening water supplies for millions of people.
Also, can you provide some sort of reference for your claim that the photos were taken in different seasons? I find this unlikely, since the regularity of the Monsoon storms and lengthy acclimatization process tend to force Everest climbers to focus their efforts during the same season each year. There are exceptions, but it is unlikely that Breashears would have intentionally chosen to retrace the old expeditions steps for documentary purposes off season.
Finally, why focus on the erroneous report, when the correct prediction suggests dire consequences for millions of people who rely on the rivers fed by those glaciers. "Several hundred years" might seem like a long time, but it is a geological blink of an eye. We should be very concerned.
Sigh. When the global warming people are able to explain just a couple of minor details, then and only then will I believe them. Here are a few little facts that tend to be conveniently omitted when global warming is mentioned.
1. Yes, there is a definite positive correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures. Using ice core samples, tree growth rings, etc., this has been confirmed. But the fly in the ointment is that the CO2 levels *lag* the temperature changes by 40 to 50 years. Excuse me? The "cause" of the global warming happens "after" things warm up? That little datum all by its lonesome is rather hard to dispute.
2. The major greenhouse gas in our atmosphere isn't CO2. It's H2O. Yup, plain old water. The effect of the CO2 is about 1 percent of the overall greenhouse effect. And of that 1%, mankind is contributing a much smaller percentage.
3. There seems to be some viking farms being uncovered in Greenland. Yup, the glaciers are melting and in the process exposing abandoned farms. Hmm. Seems to me that if there were farms where there's currently glaciers, that would imply it being much warmer in the past.
4. And finally, the polar ice on Mars seems to be also shrinking. Guess those probes we've sent there have had a massive effect on Mar's temperature as well.
Seems to me that the global warming crowd have a bit of a secondary agenda running that has nothing what so ever to do with actual global warming. When the above independently verifiable but inconvenient little facts are explained, then I will consider the GW crowd to have done due diligence and be worth listening to. But until then, it's a transparent attempted power grab and quite frankly they can take their propaganda and stuff it into the nearest fireplace. Should make 'em quite happy since paper is carbon neutral and no fossil fuels would be used.
It's worth also remembering that anytime something like this happens, it is natural to jump to CO2 as the cause, even though that might not be a valid assessment. At one time, for example, people thought the melting glaciers off Kilimanjaro was caused by global warming, but it turned out it was mainly caused by deforestation.
The article (which is light on evidence) doesn't make the connection or give any evidence as to the cause. Whether you think AGW is a serious problem or not, you ought to demand rigorous testing for any thesis presented. Anything less is unscientific.
Qxe4
TFTFY,
You're doing this whole scepticism thing wrong. Just to elaborate how:
Sceptic: I need to see evidence. A does not lead directly to C, show me B.
Denalists: I dont believe in C therefore A must be some kind of conspiracy.
I think it's fairly obvious you fit into the second category as you seem to lack the ability to demonstrate a semi-objective view and evaluate all evidence and the source from which it came.
I think you need to get a grip, you are more interested in pushing your agenda then actually presenting evidence.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
I was actually about to post that very link. The BBC article is kind of useless, since it doesn't really give any actual information, just, "Experts say this is bad."
Looking at the photos, there does seem to be a lot of change. However, there is also a shelf (immediately in front of the camera) of what appears to be rock in the old photo, that looks much lower in the newer one. Not quite sure what's going on there. Could be some of the glacier that had rocks on top (it says glaciers can get covered with debris), or could be that some geological activity caused the rock to shift in some way (quite possible, considering the Himalayas are on a continental plate boundary). If it is the latter, it could be that the whole glacier got shifted by geological activity. If someone wants to do the research on earthquake activity in the Himalayas over the past 80 years, it would be appreciated.
As far as AGW goes, I would normally be inclined to believe the scientists. However, considering that there have been instances of data mishandling, and people have been caught in outright lies and fabrication, I have to be somewhat suspicious. I find that I just can't trust them completely. It also doesn't help that the whole situation is being pressed by all kinds of political and corporate agendas.
The thing about this is, the public-at-large is really incapable of making an informed analysis of this data itself. Most of us are not trained in the necessary skills to do so, and it is an extremely complex field, making people who study the science as a hobby very, very rare. Therefore, in order for us to have any grasp on what's going on, we have to be informed by the scientists. We have to put our trust in them. Unfortunately, enough of them have broken that trust, as I previously mentioned, that we can't really take what is said by any of them at face value.
...despite no investigation as to whether the photographs were taken during the same day of the year nor as to what the internal variability is.
Brashears is a pretty bright dude. He knows that mountain as well as anybody who has ever lived. If he went to the trouble of going up there to take photos as close to Mallory's as possible, I'm sure he also went to the trouble to make sure any other variability was as close to the original as possible.
Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
Please explain the mechanism. How could a research grant affect the outcome of the research? Do you have any concrete examples.
Or are you merely trying to smear the honesty of all reseach scientists for narrow, short-sighted political reasons?
Watch this Heartland Institute video
This should really get exciting once the icepack around the lost Operation Hat SNAP reactor melts.
If you've never heard the story...briefly...in 1965, the US put a spy station in the Himalayas to observe Chinese nuclear tests. It had a SNAP (keg-sized) nuclear reactor as its power source. Unfortunately, it was lost in an avalanche. It's still there, buried under a pile of snow, its plutonium poised over the headwaters of the Ganges...
Advice: on VPS providers
So we have a few photographs and the conclusion that the ice loss is devastating--despite no investigation as to whether the photographs were taken during the same day of the year nor as to what the internal variability is.
Brashears is a pretty bright dude. He knows that mountain as well as anybody who has ever lived. If he went to the trouble of going up there to take photos as close to Mallory's as possible, I'm sure he also went to the trouble to make sure any other variability was as close to the original as possible.
Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
I actually believed Bush and company that we shouldn't trust the science and I was entirely in favor of all the related political firings from NASA, the NOAA and so on without cause. And also I was entirely for funding an unnecessary war on credit to the point where it bankrupted our country to such a degree that the following administration essentially has no way to fix it except to commit political suicide a la Jimmy Carter measures. I was right on the bandwagon for torture and illegal domestic monitoring of our citizens. Dang, but now it turns out I was incorrect, that some of these scientists who are analyzing maps are correct? Well then, they need to be fired. Alternatively, we can declare the receding ice photos a "national security" issue, in the same manner we deal with any information we think might embarrass us these days. I can't take photos of certain buildings in my own country anymore but I am certainly free to be surreptitiously videotaped and so forth. Since I live in this manufactured ignorance world created by spin doctors, this ice information is very surprising to me. I really thought we had these scientists under proper control, but here they go telling home truths yet again. Boy do I feel foolish.
Gotta love the cherry picking here. Take two arbitrary end points, get a downward slope, and then simplistically extend that slope forever. Never mind that another two end points would provide an upwards slope and reverse the prediction. Never mind that the system behaves in a demonstrably non-linear manner.
This is like saying the temperature from July to December decreased 20 degrees, and if that rate continued, we'll be at -200C in another ten years. I call BS on the church of global warming.
How many mistakes?
Here are the ones I've heard of, maybe you can add some more?
What have I missed? Do you count four as "far more than one or two"
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Hmm, actually, no. Its the "Warmists" who are releasing the hard data, its the deniers who are a lunatic propaganda followers with a "Flat earth society" culture.
That's really a broad over-generalization, there are some good scientists on both sides. Richard Lindzen is often called a denier, but he probably understands cloud dynamics as well or better than anyone on earth. He is good enough that he was invited to help with the IPCC report. Here he debates a climatologist who is not labeled a denier. If you watch him, it's hard to say he's not a good scientist even if you don't agree with him.
Another good, publishing 'denier' is John Christy. He was a lead author of the 2001 IPCC report. He's been active in the field for a while, and has a major goal of verifying scientific research. He was initially responsible for using satellite data to measure the change in the earth's temperature. He's gone out to Africa personally to build temperature datasets. He is as respectable as any climatologist.
As long as we're talking about lunatic fringes, Richard Lindzen has had death threats from his position on global warming. Why? But yet whether there are crazy people on either side doesn't affect the truth or falseness of the thesis.
Qxe4
I could've taken a picture of the weather in the UK late last year when we had an incredibly large amount of snow that stayed around for weeks (unusual in the UK where snow usually becomes muddy slush within a day).
Would that be incontrovertible proof the UK is getting colder? Of course not.
Junk science is unacceptable, no matter which side of the fence you sit. Is it any wonder scepticism is on the rise when scientists point to stuff like this as cast iron proof?
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.
The problem is that if we take the measures often suggested by warmists, and increase energy prices by eschewing the cheapest forms of energy available to us, we'll drive the poorest of the poor deeper into poverty and despair in several hundred days. If you're willing to assert we should be concerned about the fate of millions of people hundreds of years from now, surely you'll admit that we should be more concerned about millions of people hundreds of days from now, right?
Reducing use of fossil fuels is a noble cause, but using AGW as the reason is akin to telling a teenage boy to stop what he's doing because he's gonna go blind!
Well, perhaps that boy should quit playing with his new lightsa...err, ambiguous, bar-shaped laser "toy".
Oh wait, I see what you did there.
I'll grant you that, in the case of a dearth of data (such as simply two photos, sans any sort of historical collection of other relevant data), but really, given the raw data, any executable programs used to massage the data, the general public at large is probably better qualified to sniff out problems than you think. They might not pick up on certain subtleties, such as UHI, proxy problems, the inappropriateness of using black body radiation equations to assert the existence of a "greenhouse effect", or other definitions of technical constants. But there is no such thing as "the scientists" in the end - they're just people, some who may disagree with each other on various points here and there. The idea of some amorphous group of "the scientists" giving us wisdom we can't grasp is a generalization that warps the conversation, I think.
Phil Jones, couldn't trust that man to flush the toilet. Richard Lindzen, might not be a good prom date, but he's certainly as trustworthy as anyone else in the field.
I think the dilemma comes when we have two people we can trust, and they've both come to diametrically opposed conclusions. If anything, this should be a clue for us as to the current insolubility of the problem in question - but boy, if there's anything people hate it's ambiguity.
Also, can you provide some sort of reference for your claim that the photos were taken in different seasons?
They look like they were taken at different seasons. Look at the snowcap towards the top of the mountain: in one picture there is a lot of snow, in the other there is a lot of bare rock.
I don't know much about seasons on Everest, but the snowpack on the top seems to change a lot, as can be seen in this picture and this picture.
Sometimes it's better to investigate rather than throw out wild challenges.
Qxe4
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.
Since I live very close to himalayas, I can say with confidence, that things have changed quite a bit.
Is it global warming/regional warming or no warming, I dunno.
But over the past 6-7 years these changes have forced farmers to change crop cycles, modified travel plans of seasonal roads, etc., etc.,
Basically, in the Western himalayas, around November, snowfalls would start, seasonal roads would close by december, and jan feb were heavy snowfall months, with some in April and may.
Now from past few years, there is hardly any snow during December and even January, which leads to lousy apple crop.
Then in feb, it snows some, and in April may and june, well heavy snowfall in higher reaches.
This kills the standing crop.
The entire north India reels under heat wave as there is hardly any winter rain. We start getting summer in feb instead of April.
The mountains start getting snow.
So is it warming or cooling. No idea, but its a big change from what has been happening since 1900 or so(when record keeping started).
Winter rain, at the correct time, and winter snow at correct time is very important for healthy crops. all this cycle change has led to big problems.
To add to that, monsoon summer rain has also reduced. Thankfully, this year, though a bit late, monsoon is mostly adequate, but then here also instead of sustained rain over few days, most places get a cloudburst like havoc creating spell, and then its humid and dry. The dams will get filled up, but areas depending only on rain will suffer.
Such rains also lead to big landslides.
Part of the blame is on local deforestation, and micro climate change in the Himalayan region due to rapid commercialization and deforestation. Since protecting the environment is not yet a major election issue, its just a lip service on world environment day, when we switch of lights for an hour(and then get the routine 10 hour power cut due to overload of AC).
So all in all, pics or no pics, the local weather in western himalayas has changed. Hopefully, this weather pattern will stabilize, and farmers will switch there crop sowing times. But since its still too erratic, its a big problem.
As for global warming, when I see the temperature records for the region since 1900, the average temp has been rising steadily in most places, but whether this warming is caused by humans or not, I dunno. I am not a climatologist and like many people here, I will refrain from posting my theories on the changes.
All that matters to many, is that its getting hotter and drier, and rainfall patterns are shifting alarmingly.
Many glaciers in central himalayas are indeed receding, and its a fact. Not that they are warmer now, but because from past few years, there has been little winter snow in these areas.
The ski slopes of Auli, which used to be snowed out in winters, now are devoid of snow many times. Last year Auli did not get a snow season.
This year in June higher reaches of himachal got a few feet of snow. Not unusual, but definitely unusual in the peak of summer!
So the weather is changing, but who is changing it I dunno. I hope it can be fixed, because it causing a lot of food supply problems. Fruits are out of reach of many, and if this continues, even cereals will become precious.
My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
The problem is that the article takes pains to explain that it was shot at the same place, but cleverly (or rather dumbly) leaves out of the fact on the timing. Secondly, the question "what time of the year in 2010 would correspond to the same time as the 1929 photo was shot" is quite tricky so answer. There is the variability due to earth's revolution not being 1 year exact (Given that we take 365.25 years, he needs to have visited the place 20 days later in 2010 than when it was visited in 1929), other factors (non-global warming related) such as direction of the wind and its changes, etc Only after this has been well scrutinized, one could possibly conclude that the loss is due to AGW.
since you, the warmist, just mistook the deniers for the warmists...
Whoosh....
"That report" had a handful of factual errors in the WG2 section, dealing with the likely consequences of climate change, but no mistakes at all have been identified in the crucial WG1 section, where the veracity of anthropogenic global warming is firmly established. This despite it being one of the most closely-examined scientific reports of our time.
You are treating end results as fact without letting other scientists check your work.
Much of the WG1 data is in fact publicly available. I don't see any systematic analysis papers by reputable scientists challenging WG1's conclusions, only bloggers with an agenda presenting cherry-picked numbers and anecdotes as if they were somehow expecting to be taken seriously. Strangely enough, the thousands of climatologists who have systematically analysed climate data from a variety of unrelated sources and published their findings in peer-reviewed journals almost universally agree with WG1's conclusions. So on which side of the debate is the science fail, exactly?
Not sure why I'm bothering to respond, since your flamebait was modded as such early on this time. You did better when your rants were subjective opinions; it's not working out for you so well since you tried challenging the scientific conclusions of the nearly all the relevant experts on the planet.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Talking as a mountain climber, and trying to put the discussion back on topic (I see 141 comments, mostly trolling and inevitable answers), I'll just say that comparing pictures for snow covers is misleading, even when taken at the same time of the year. A few inches of snow can be enough to make it appear as if you have lots more. Only depth samples and yearly layer comparisons can give you hindsight. Even comparing the length of a given glacier over time can be misleading: if it rains a lot, it will lubricate the bottom interface between ice and rock and the ice will flow faster, hence a longer glacier (for a while).
Non-Linux Penguins ?
Though I don't think TFA (apart from the photographer himself) was claiming any form of proof of anything, or even that it was billed as "science journalism". It's certainly not a controlled study, as you say, just an interesting anecdote in the context of prior arguments about Himalayan glacier loss.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Richard Lindzen is often called a denier.
Now I'm not adverse to dispensing the term 'denialist' to those I feel fit to wear it, but to do so to Lindzen seems to me very unfair. Lindzen, notwithstanding some of his questionable contributions to the popular media, has generally engaged with the science on a scientific basis and where over time a point as been fairly well established, has conceded (or at least not persisted) and moved on. That's the very opposite behaviour from that which characterises a denialist.
However we have to be careful to be specific about what sceptical climatologists such as Lindzen, Christy or Pielke actually take issue with and when they did and not merely assume their position endorses the entire denialist agenda. And further we need to take into account the response of orthodox climatologists make to the sceptical critique, bearing in mind that Lindzen's expertise as a "respectable climatologist" puts him in a privileged position relative to say a pharmacologist (my original training) when it comes to disputing the orthodox position in climate science.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
...(Given that we take 365.25 years, he needs to have visited the place 20 days later in 2010 than when it was visited in 1929)...
Wait..what? Leap years dude. =]
However, comparing the prominent S-curves in the foreground reveals a significant difference in perspective/foreshortening that makes it clear that the color photo is taken from a higher elevation. The distant shapes seem to match pretty well so I don't think it's an aspect-ratio fuck-up, although that would be all too common in this modern world where nobody seems able to notice that effect either.
I RTFA and it mentions the date '1921' not '1929' as appears in the summary.
Who cares what causes global warming? All we know is that it is there and if we don't do something about it we could be seriously fscked.
I personally don't believe all of this is caused by carbondioxide, but if we reduce it then we might reduce the effects a little.
All that matters is that the avarage temperatures need to stay the same. Tiny increases already show how bad that is for us humans; our society. Without it we are just instinctive trash.
Who cares about the environment? The environment adapts. It is our society and the way we live that we endanger.
In other words we screw ourselves if we don't reverse gobal avarage temperature increases...
Here be signatures
It takes quite a bit of arrogance to believe that a little virus can kill such a big human that quickly.
I'm sorry, but the real world doesn't work the way you imply. Nature doesn't care about your simplistic intuition of what's possible; the climate isn't a stable system that requires a lot of input to change in fundamental ways. It's constantly in flux, and small changes can cause the balance to shift in fundamental ways.
You are missing the point. This is not about saving the planet, it's about saving our own asses. Yes, the planet will continue rotating, and will still be here long after we're all dead. But, uh, we won't be here unless we make sure that the planet continues to be able to sustain human life.
The idea that we can't change our planet is defeatist bullshit. In the 80s, people thought that overpopulation would cause major world wars within a decade, that we would have revolutions in Europe, and that billions of people would die. It didn't happen. Why? Because of science. We managed to improve resource usage so much that we were able to sustain ever growing populations (and now we're seeing that at some point, human population stop growing naturally in developed nations without being constrained by a lack of resources, so there's a good chance that we might eventually reach a balance that doesn't involve billions of people dying due to a lack of resources).
Humanity is capable of doing awesome, great things, and there is no reason to believe that we can't solve this problem, if we accept that it is a problem and start actually taking it seriously before it is truly too late.
Of course, since the crazies posting here think the Earth was sneezed out by the Argleblaster six thousand years ago, there is no arguing with them.
It seems to me that the more scientists learn about the Earth and our place in the Universe, the more the religious fundamentalists disbelieve them. Galileo is bloody lucky he didn't live in Alabama in the 21st century.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Because that means we do not have to do anything and go on with whatever we are doing. Taking responsibility is not an easy thing to do. Ignoring the issue is much easier.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
I don't think you understand how science works. You seem to think that some scientist comes up with something, and then it's the law.
No. Science doesn't work that way. Scientists publish their results, and then other scientists look at their data, try to reproduce the results, and generally try to find problems. You know how you become a famous scientist? By disproving something every other scientist believes. This gets you the nobel price. This is the incentive. Find errors. Be smarter than everybody else. Have better data, a better explanation, a better way of predicting things.
There is no incentive at all for thousands of scientists to be part of some kind of insane global conspiracy that misleads everybody else.
is about psychology and sociology, not climatology
the power of denial
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I'm with you. It used to be the norm that there were vineyards as far north as Sweden. It seems that that will be the norm again soon. Our choices are to adapt or die, not to whine and go all 'Chicken Little' when faced with the unavoidable.
Yes, there are people who study these things, and who get research grants to do so. Grants that in NO WAY influence the conclusions of such research?
Reducing use of fossil fuels is a noble cause, but using AGW as the reason is akin to telling a teenage boy to stop what he's doing because he's gonna go blind!
Whereas the few scientists who disbelieve AGW and who are under the employ of the oil industry, and the conservative commentators pushing the conspiracy theories... THEY all work for free. Not a one has a vested interest in what they're pushing, and in fact they have a stellar record of honesty and impartiality.
This space available.
"I'm also willing to take part in green policies *JUST IN CASE* we're the cause of the problem."
Policies? Perhaps. But actually spend money on it? It's ridiculous. If it's not happening, money is being WASTED that really COULD clean up the environment.
I'm an odd duck. I actually -want- to accept AGW as fact... But the refusal to release the data means I can't. And then 'climategate' (which was cleared by funding from the same people who caused it) showed me that the 'scientists' involved have a complete disregard for the scientific process, even going so far as to destroy data so that other scientists can't replicate their work.
I just read grist.org's answer to the fact that CO2 follows temperature, and not the other way around... The answer amazed me. They said that most of the time they are in lock-step. Only some of the time does temperature lead a change in CO2. Notice how CO2 never leads? That's like Car A being followed by Car B and then B accusing A of following it. "But the only time you lead was when we turned a corner!" ... Seriously.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
This is the major problem - too many people on both sides of the argument evagelising their point of view. We get a few photographs with little supporting data (even the most basic of measurements such as time of year, and you'd really want photos for each of the interim years to see if this is natural variation, etc) and even on a site with a heavily scientific skew there are people claiming it supports everything that's been said about climate change, instantly forgetting the old rule of correlation != causation. And both sides are equally guilty of this - I'm singling out the pro-climate change viewpoint as that's the story here, but there have been plenty of instances of the anti- viewpoint doing the same thing. Meanwhile there are regular people in the middle trying to sort the facts from the emotional outpourings and they'd just like more actual data to do so. Won't somebody please think of the science! I know it's frustrating to have actual data denied by frothing madmen on the opposing side, but the way to counter that is to explain to the sensible people why the data is accurate, not to roll out your own New and Improved Frothing Madmen (now with 30% more shoutiness).
</rant>
you know, after the last global warming spell?
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
You remind me about the story on slashdot a little while ago http://idle.slashdot.org/story/10/07/14/1235220/Given-Truth-the-Misinformed-Believe-Lies-More
Clearly no amount of information will ever convince those who look at climate change as an "Us against Them" subject (it's all tribalism for them, logic has no bearing) instead of approaching it as a social/economic risk-cost analysis.
Alright.
Do you remember the Slashdot discussion two weeks ago, about how Monsanto scientists were, like, totally faking research results in the hope of convincing everyone that GM food is safe?*
Or perhaps you remember the Slashdot discussion last week, about how Pepsico scientists were going to start blogging on Scienceblogs.com? And of course they were certain to spend all their time making out that "science proves junk food is good".*
The source of research funding in each case is a corporation, and not a very popular one. Please can you explain how the funding of, say, the Climate Research Unit certainly does not affect the research outcomes under any circumstances, but the funding of a Monsanto or Pepsi scientist definitely does affect the research?
* I'm not exagerrating, this is basically what the article summaries said. Extreme editorial bias. Fact is, this is just politics. We only trust the scientists who say the things we like. Never mind about "evidence" and "facts", the thing that distinguishes good science from bad science is truthiness.
There are 6.85 billion people affecting the planet TODAY.
How many have lived and died during only the last 100 years? How many alive today will continue to live for decades to come.
Changes we are making are cumulative - particularly the ones involving the use of large quantities of fossil fuels. Per person, per lifetime.
Even in death we continue affecting the planet with our slow rotting in the ground.
Heck... Ares might be overoptimistic.
We are probably down to affecting simply our own back yards, going down to a pot of dirt on each persons windowsill.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
oh stop interrupting a perfectly good emotional argument with your focus on "logic" and "data". Actual analysis seems hard so we won't even try to understand it. Therefore it means nothing. I own a copy of Photoshop (well a pirated copy anyway), therefore the all chemists and physicists are making it all up, just as I would if I were in their place! Don't you know that perception is reality and we only need to look as far as next quarter's balance sheet? (or election, as the case may be)
If science is hard it must be wrong! Because I like easy and familiar, and I like being right!
I don't know what your mental is of the depth of The Earth's atmosphere but it's about about as thick as the layer of varnish on a one-foot globe. There's mountains that you can't survive on if you climb to the top of them.
ie. It's *thin*.
Man is perfectly capable of changing its composition, eg. if we all burn a couple of gallons of gas a day for our lifetimes and burn a few tons of coal per year to run our lights, TVs and computers.
No sig today...
Still? It will *always* be the age of bacteria. They simply out-live us. There's more of them by any measure you'd care to take, they adapt faster, they survive in more environments, and they were here first. We've evolved around their presence. We literally could not live without them.
Also, that's an excellent point in the crazy global warming debate. I don't think enough people know/realize that the Earth's atmosphere wasn't always as oxygen rich as it is now.
non-existence-of-God-denialists
Awesome. I have been calling them "myth-believers" but I like your term better.
What he's referring to is that if you don't get some conclusions similar to the ones they're looking for in the grants, you won't get more money along those lines- and possibly elsewhere.
Grant funded research really isn't very good research in that it's politics, not science, that really drives what is getting done and reported.
I have to agree, that the visual impression of the pictures in TFA are not very convincing, however if you take a look at the pictures of Alpine Glaciers you'll see that the time of the year isn't really an issue. There's a distinct difference between a blanket of snow and a glacier.
"As opposed to the climate change deniers who release 900 page reports reviewed by the elite of the world scientific community with only 1 or 2 mistakes in them ?"
Please try to understand. It's not that they made "one or two mistakes". It's the sloppy and stupid nature of these errors, and the profound lack of scientific rigor that they revealed.
If you had a 900 page allegedly peer-reviewed report from "the elite of the medical community" which casually included a statement that cancer rates would rise because of increased demonic activity, would that make you wonder about the process? How about if a bunch of them then denied the possibility of a problem? Suppose it then became clear that a bunch of people had pointed this out in the past, but were ignored? Would any of that be enough to make you stop relying on faith, and start relying on thinking?
Devils advocate but if your findings preclude additional studies and funding you are stopping a potential gravy train. So yes a grant could affect the outcome if it is the basis for more grants.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
Look, why not just come out and say that it's a fucking ZOG conspiracy? Then we'll know you're a retard and can ignore you.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Being favoured in the thread about AGW would cause me double-check my basic motor skills before driving a car :-)
So, what is it? The guys who work for Monsato are whiter than white, or the guys who work for the UEA CRU are corrupt? Do you want to have your cake, or eat it?
Watch this Heartland Institute video
The poorest of the poor don't use oil for anything. They could care less what the world does with oil. Their great grand children may have a use for it but by then a suitable alternative would be much more useful to them since it's likely they won't be profiting from oil and it will be more scarce regardless of conservation measures.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
So, it's never happened, but when it does happen...
Like I said. This is mere slander in order to refute reality with preconceived political dogma.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Please explain the mechanism. How could a research grant affect the outcome of the research?
Suppose you've got 20 climate scientists, fairly honest but not immune to their prejudices influencing what kinds of questions they ask, or what contextual information they consider or leave out when presenting results. Suppose 10 find that global warming is a very serious problem that needs further study, and 10 find that there isn't much there that's worth looking at. In the next round, only the 10 with the more alarmist spin get funded, and the other 10 have been weeded out.
Or you can flip this around, and argue that global warming denialists are going to be able to get oil company grants. I'm not arguing for or against a particular position on global warming. I'm just trying to explain one way that funding affects scientific outcomes without overt fraud being committed.
Do you have any concrete examples.
I'm not a climate scientist, but I could give many, many concrete examples in other areas. This is a bit of a minefield, so I'll just give one. I know of a scientist who's work showed that the space station has severe limitations as a platform for microgravity research. His report was suppressed by NASA for political reasons, and he received no additional funding on that topic.
Or are you merely trying to smear the honesty of all reseach scientists for narrow, short-sighted political reasons?
I can't speak for that other guy. If he's like other global warming denialists I've argued with, his stance is likely to be all political. However, in my experience, the people who get all offended at the suggestion that money corrupts science are often the worst offenders, with the least amount of objectivity about their own biases.
Begging the question. Where is your evidence that someone is "looking for conclusions".
You are slandering people based on your political prejudices.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Because if you don't generate results that indicate that more study is desperately needed, you won't get the next grant. If the results of the study funded by this grant says that there is nothing to worry about then the next grant will go to some other field of study or to some scientists who says that there is a disaster waiting to happen and we need to do more study to understand how to stop it.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Not really. Most of the people who do the research are climatologists. Their work is only done when we understand everything about climate, which isn't going to happen as a result of global warming research, regardless of the outcome.
I'm a little curious about the cause, which the article doesn't really go into.
Is this all due to global warming? Or is part of it due to some sort of decreased snowfall?
There's been a lot of changes in the region in the past century. I wouldn't be surprised if the resulting loss of (say) forest has changed precipitation.
and since your cynicism lets you dismiss any worry that maybe you'd have to get off your fat arse, you're happy with that.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
What nonsense. If you were able to cast doubt on AGW in some credible way you'd have money poured into your pockets so fast your trousers would fall down.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
In fact, I'll take the analogy even further.
The reason anyone feels the need to declare their environmentalist bonfides is because there is a new bigotry developing, which I will ball the EnviroBigot. This is a person who feels others who do not show the appropriate amount of deference to the "Environment" is any one or all of Stupid, Selfish, Evil.
It allows EnviroBigots to discount policy arguments with a simple dismissals such as "oh, he drives an SUV", or "ignore what he says, he works for Big (Insert most currently reviled industry here)". It saves the EnviroBigot the need to think critically and re-enforces the echo chamber that they call debate.
So everyone get ready. Soon you won't be able to say squat about the environment without first declaring that you are a "friend" to the environment.
Here are some handy dandy phrases you can use...
"I recycle, but I don't think I should have to pay a fine if I miss a can in the trash."
"I really support Alternative Energy, In fact, I have a solar array on my roof. But I think that at this time Nuclear Power is the best bet to reduce carbon emissions"
"I drive a car that gets 1000 miles per gallon and I never use the A/C, but we really do need to keep drilling for oil because it is used for so many other things than just fuel."
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
You used the total surface area of the earth. Land area is only 148,940,000Km^2. So, the correct calculation is 0,0217 Km^2/habitant, which is only 4,01 "football fields" (according to your calculation for football field size, as I simply did the ratios). And you need to remember that unfortunately the calculation isn't just for our lifetime, but our parents, grandparents, great-grandparents..., and our children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren. We already inherited an earth that is pretty messed up compared to just 700 years ago in terms of man created trash and pollution. Just look at the floating plastic "island" in the Pacific for more proof of that.
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
...unless you have some way of proving it. It's just as possible that Photo A taken in August, Photo B taken in March. That being said, assume the glaciers are retreating. How does the fact that they are retreating prove global warming and not just regional change? Me, I would think the extra 4 billion people now making their home all about the Himilayas as compared to 1921 would be able to modify the local environment enough to induce such a change. Soot, deforestation, dams, irrigation, pollution, strip mining, and more should have a pretty big impact, but it's all just pointless speculation...
Soot may be to blame.
in the "what are you going to believe, your own eyes?" department...
Research in Phenology (the study of the seasonal changes of plant and animal life) shows significant advances in spring activity at points across the globe.
http://www.scienceonline.org/cgi/content/summary/sci;324/5929/887
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15592880
http://www.seaturtle.org/PDF/Parmesan_2003_Nature.pdf
These are supplemented by anecdotal evidence - particularly in higher latitudes - that things are changing rapidly, and that surroundings are changing with in a generations living memory.
http://harvardmagazine.com/2002/11/the-great-global-experim.html
Ever hear of the expression, "cant see the wood for the trees" ?
Something like 98% of scientists agree the climate change is real, there are three or four (so im told now) what you would call "sloppy and stupid natured" mistakes in detailing the consequences of climate change, and you think the whole report is a fraud...
Where is the hard evidence supporting the theory that the climate isnt changing ?
Start relying on thinking.
The worldwide retreat of glaciers is well established
So is the rate of decline of glaciers including that one, so we know what it is and it's not as alarming as the story is trying to make it sound.
Are you really saying glaciers would never ever retreat under any natural scenario for climate change? Have I got a few valleys to show you...
Also, can you provide some sort of reference for your claim that the photos were taken in different seasons? I find this unlikely, since the regularity of the Monsoon storms and lengthy acclimatization process tend to force Everest climbers to focus their efforts during the same season each year.
And I find that comment exceptionally ill-informed. They are nowhere near the top. Many people go there to hike around Everest, not necessarily to ascend. As others have noted the snow on the mountain itself clearly indicates it was taken in a different season, and people are there year-round to do so.
It's sad to see people parroting the latest fear-mongering story, even after the whole "Himalayan glaciers are gone by 2035" exploded in the faces of the Warmists.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The photos in the linked article are small and hard to interpret. Better photos with commentary available at: http://asiasociety.org/OnThinnerIce Also check out the "Then and Now link". It shows several other glaciers in the region and shows measurements of the 300-400 feet (122 meters) loss of thickness of ice in several glaciers.
And I won't forget yours.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
If you do 2 then your papers are going to be regarded as junk, you'll probably end up publishing them in E&E, and that will be the end of all future funding.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
But that's exactly the problem.
Whenever anyone comes out with the "funding corrupts the science" meme it's always the evil warmists who are being accused. Because, bizarrely, there is no serious research "debunking" AGW.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Please can we take the belief terminology and appeals to authority out of the debate? If you believe in global warming, then you are an idiot.
Awesome, first, insist that others drop beliefs and appeals to authority, then immediately state your own beliefs installing yourself as an authority figure. Well done! If this was kinder-troll-garten you would have earned a golden star for that one.
If you believe in anything because the majority of scientists do, then you are an idiot.
So how many "idiots" here believe in the laws of thermodynamics? Sure, there are probably a handful of /. readers who may be able to fully grasp the science behind it, but the vast majority of us just accept it because the majority of scientists do. But by all means, continue on your quest to create a perpetual motion machine. Obviously all those scientist are just incompetent, or part of a huge plot to ensure energy demands for the future.
Heck, along with thermodynamics lets toss in life sciences. Since only an "idiot" would trust the popular opinion of scientists, you must not be big on western medicine. Those quacks are just out to make a quick buck scamming insurance companies. They can't do anything that a good leech or lancing can't fix.
This whole "write off the scientists" argument has to be the most mentally deficient angle ever produced in such a debate. Do us all a favor, take your drivel back to school and get some proper trolling education before you spout off that weak crap.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
The problem is everyone sees ice loss, and assumes melt. It's not melt, it is sublimation.
Sublimation - when solid goes directly to gas is to blame. This is like water ice on Mars evaporating (not melting) into the martian atmosphere. Here on Earth the increased sublimation is caused by land use changes. What was once moist forest at the feet of the mountains, has become drier farm land. This drier air then travels over the mountain and picks up moisture directly from the ice.
How else can you explain ice loss at below-freezing temperatures? You can't just say the "ice melted" unless you show that it is warmer at the peak. These pictures are proof that man is modifying the environment, but only locally, and has nothing to do with temperature.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
It reminds me of the difference between my back yard during the winter of 1921 and my back yard during the summer of 2010...
There's no place like
bizarrely, there is no serious research "debunking" AGW.
I don't think its bizzare, irrespective of the facts about global warming. Energy companies are also to some extent on the global warming bandwagon for political reasons, because their lobbyists are in a good position to determine who would control a gigantic carbon trading scheme and who would benefit.
It doesn't seem to me that the fact of influence of money can be used to make a decisive pro or con argument about global warming. All a person can do is continue to argue the merits of the science, even though a lot of people aren't going to be convinced by that.
Is this how AGW denialists picture the "post-AGW world?" Some kind of genocidal ultra-authoritarian oligarchic dystopia? Holy fuck, I don't know where to start. I'll just take a stab at it.
Look, it won't be too different from today. Your car will go weeng instead of vroom, there will be nuclear plants in place of coal plants, you'll see more dams and wind turbines, you'll put recyclable garbage in separate bins, and that's basically it.
The "post-AGW world" will look similar to a wealthy Canadian town full of eco-chic yuppies (but hopefully without everyone acting like a pretentious douchebag). No genocide and certainly no shortage of electronics.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
6)Has to be able to support thousands of pounds while filled with liquid without breaking or deforming (this isn't an exaggeration. Cases of water will be stacked 6 or 7 tall on a pallet then two or three more full pallets will be stacked on top of that.)
A friend of mine owns the local Culligan water business. I have been in the warehouse many times and have NEVER seen one water bottle holding up 5 or 6 layers of cases of water on its own. In fact, each layer of the pallets have always contained [gasp] the SAME NUMBER OF WATER BOTTLES, which means if the cases are stacked 7 high, each bottle on the bottom only needs to hold up the weight of 6 water bottles and a little extra weight from cardboard and plastic packaging, which doesn't amount to much. Even if you do stack pallets 3 high of 7 layers, each bottle on the bottom layers is probably holding up roughly 30 lbs, which is much less than your "thousands of pounds" claim.
I should probably tell my friend to let the rest of the bottled water industry know that they no longer have to balance 6 layers of cases of water onto a single bottle. It gets tricky moving those stacks around with a skid loader.
"I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
Here we must recycle, its the law - so when we get rid of stuff we take the extra 5 mins to sort it. When the whole country does it, it makes a difference.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
That's the point I was making. Other scientists replicate results, so sooner or later (usually sooner), when scientists falsify results, it always comes out. As you yourself point out, there's even scientific inquiry into how often scientists do this kind of stuff!
I can hear the deniers of AGW screaming now... the article says the same location, but not the same date or time of year.
mark "please put those living in Cloud Cucooland to rest"
These arguments are always presented the same way: our choices are 1) keep doing what we're doing, regardless of the resulting environmental devastation, or 2) go back to the Stone Age. But of course, in reality we have the third option of better energy conservation + non-polluting energy generation, which not only are pretty much solved problems, but actually save everyone a bunch of money in the long run. But they're not so good for the bottom line of outfits like ExxonMobil... so with the aid of a bunch of bought-off lawmakers and vast quantities of FUD, nothing gets done.
I understand your point. Cane and Eve, as sick as is sounds, must have goteen together. The gene pool was a lot cleaner back then - lol. I do hope you don't base an entire disbelief of the bible on that one point. Every single prophecy in the book has come true so far. Scientists have used it to find geological locations due to its historical accuracy. Nothing scientific has ever proven anything in it wrong. It was written by 40 different authors over a span of thousands of years, yet Genesis to Revelation complement and relate perfectly. Have you read it? People (Lee Strobel for one) have set out to prove that it's just another book, and in the process have become Christians.
Contrary to popular belief, the bible and science complement each other. They are not polar opposites or in diametric opposition. Obviously they can't be since God himself created science, but I know most people in here don't share this viewpoint : ) And that's an example of the free will that He has granted you ; )
Proverbs 21:19 It is better to dwell in the wilderness, than with a contentious and an angry woman.
Nothing to to with climate science. Bloggers complaining about their blog collective being corrupted by money, not people complaining about research being corrupted.
Nothing to do with climate science, the BBC printing an op-ed piece from the famous John Innes triffid breeding station without revealing the writers affiliation.(*)
Nothing to do with science - "big tobacco" being accused of funding political action.
So it's bloggers with twisted nickers, more dodgy stuff from UEA and and "astroturf".
What does this have to do with research funding again?
((*) When I was at UEA in 1977-1980 we all knew what was going on behind those strong fences with bright floodlights at night. The CRU was obviously set up as a cover operation to hide what the loonies in the John Innes centre were up to).
Watch this Heartland Institute video
See for instance: http://www.americanalpineclub.org/pt/climbatology, which is a study similar to the one Breashears just did. Or http://www.tipping-points.com/?p=44, which is an article that ran in Climbing Magazine in 2002.
I have a copy of Climbing Magazine from the mid-1990s that has a guide to climbing in the Cordillera Blanca of Peru. Many of the routes in that guide are now unclimbable because the ice and snow on the routes have melted, leaving weak, shattered rock that is unsafe for climbing.
It's a real phenomenon, and not just in the Himalaya. How much is due to temperature changes vs. precipitation changes vs. melting accelerants is an open question, and probably the factors are a bit different for different ranges. But for whatever reason, most mountain glaciers around the world seem to be losing mass.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
There's a lot of rhetoric being thrown around from both sides. Both proponents and opponents have made exaggerated, outrageous, and sometimes untrue claims. Sure, the proponents have "science" on their side, but the reality of science is that it is filled with uncertainties and acknowledge numerous unaccounted variables. It's not to say that the science becomes invalid, but that the issue isn't as black and white as both sides would like to think.
It's easy to point to somebody else's house and say it's messy, but you really ought to clean up your own house before doing so.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Half your post is pretty much an off-topic, protectionist rant - I'm not sure what it has to do with the topic of global warming. But this:
I'm sorry, dude, but this is freaking ridiculous. There's two ways you can get the results you're talking about: 1) Soviet-style command economy measures, where the gov't just orders the coal plants shut down and new green plants built, or 2) market-driven measures (yes, cap & trade) which essentially prices carbon based fuel out of the market. 1) has the advantage of being quick, but it's politically impossible, probably illegal, and this kind of thing frequently results in distortions of the energy market - plants are built in powerful lawmakers' jurisdictions rather than where they're needed, and using technology built in powerful lawmakers' districts rather than the most effective technology.
2) avoids all that, by just using pricing mechanisms to make coal fired plants uneconomical to continue operating. It's unquestionably legal (similar plans are in place to reduce other pollutants) and more efficient because it doesn't pick favorite sites or technologies.
What about the costs? Ask fisherman on the Gulf Coast what Deepwater Horizon is costing them. Or hotel operators along the beaches. Ask the families of dead coal miners in Appalachia, and the people whose entire landscapes have been destroyed in mountain-leveling operations. Ask the people suffering from various pollution-related illnesses. Ask the people who can't eat fish more than once a week because it's poisoned with mercury (from burning coal). The point: there are costs no matter what we do. Green power is cheaper in the long run, and if we don't do cap & trade, what? A magic wand? And while there are substantial change-over costs to get there, it's a lot cheaper than, say, invading random countries in the Middle East and occupying them for decades so as to ensure a steady oil supply.
I think it is obvious what happened. The largest event between 1929 and today was WW2. Hitler caused the shrinking of the glaciers.
Quid Pro Quo - Hitler is Causing Climate Change!
Surely two pieces of evidence is enough for anybody!
They say a "Picture is worth a thousand words", and by my estimation that gives us about 2000, which is about the length of your average 1st year university enviromental sciences paper, conclusively proving Climate Change to be evaluated by some tired TA.
Yes I was an ES major once upon a time, and took ES100 and passed it (barely), therefor I am ultimately qualified to critique this topic! I may have skipped every single lecture, with the exception of one, which we watched a movie, however I did skim over the textbook before the final exam, and managed to pull off an overall passing grade.
Anyway before I get flamed to death, I am mostly just joking around. However I will point out that this only proves that there is less glacier today than they had in 1929, it doesn't prove climate change as so many are wont to point out. As the tired old phrase that gets pointed out about every science academic topic, usually making big headlines, "Cause VS Causality" needs to be addressed before ones jumps to conclusions. I also like the Climatologists who dislike anyone outside their "order" commenting on their holy book of proof, when the only ones qualified to look at the glacier, take measurements and come up with any kind of conclusion would be a Geographer or Geologist with a Geofluvial background and understands the dynamics and processes at work at the time scales used to working in geologic time, but whatever.
You're criticizing one set of photos, probably because that's all you know about, from this story.
If you were plugged into the climbing community you would know that very many mountain glaciers and permanent snowfields are in retreat worldwide. It's well known among mtn guides that many high-mountain routes in South America, for instance, have had to change over the past few decades as the size of glaciers and snowfields have decreased. This particular story has happened to make it into the mainstream press but it's far from the only one that climbers have been talking about.
You are right that this data does not prove one or another theory as to why it is happening. But my question is--why are you so eager to attack its validity? You spent the 2nd half of your post doing so. You're right that pictures around Everest don't prove a global phenomenon, but they don't disprove it either.
If you really want to know about the global situation you can find out pretty easily by contacting guide services working in the high mountains of the world. They spend more time there than anyone else.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
The story didn't mention if the photos were taken at the same time of year, only the same place. I wonder if that has anything to do with the apparent results.
Just because other created people were not mentioned in Genesis does not mean they did not exist. For example, if you asked me who went to a concert, I could tell you "Joe, Tina, and I." Just because I didn't mention the other 5,000 strangers (who are not relevant to us) or that our mutual friend Bob was also there but we didn't know that doesn't mean those people did not attend. Adam and Eve were the first two humans, and they had three offspring-- that's what we know. We can infer that other people existed, because Cain and Seth took wives. Their origin is not explained, but I can theorize that they were also created.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
It is cold there all the time, but it is not equally cold all year. Notice that TFA said that
"The melt waters of these high altitude glaciers supply crucial seasonal flows to the Ganges, Brahmaputra, Salween, Irrawaddy, Mekong, Yangtze and Yellow rivers, which hundreds of millions of people downstream depend on for their livelihoods,"
That means the ice DOES naturally melt at certain times of the year, so the time of year that the new photo was taken IS relevant, and conspicuously absent from the article.
There are a lot of problems with sunshade methods of climate control. The most realistic methods involve putting reflective particles (sulfates or water droplets) into the stratosphere.
I won't even bother discussing space umbrellas and the like. If we can't afford to switch to green energy, we really can't afford these. It's pretty much pie-in-the-sky.
Bottom line: the whole idea of geoengineering on this scale is a giant exercise in "what could possibly go wrong?" Trying to do this on the only planet you have to live on is not much short of crazy. We know the cause of global warming, and we know how to mitigate it - burn less carbon. So why don't we just get started?
Switching to green energy would be worthwhile even in the absence of global warming. We could avoid all sorts of air and water pollution (with attendant cost savings), avoid sending money by the supertanker load to the middle east, achieve significant defense savings by not having to police the middle east (the region's importance is largely driven by our need to secure oil resources), remove our need to knock down entire mountains for coal (with attendant safety hazards for miners), eliminate hugely costly environmental disasters like Deepwater Horizon, etc, etc. The bottom line here is economic: we'd save a lot of money in the long run if we'd get our ass in gear and started the switch to clean energy now.
Excellent point. Much more eloquent and reasonable than mine.
Proverbs 21:19 It is better to dwell in the wilderness, than with a contentious and an angry woman.
Sublimation is what happens when ice is exposed at below freezing temperatures to dry air. But most of the ice in mountain glaciers is covered with snow, especially when the ambient temperature is significantly below freezing (i.e. during winter). Winter is a period of growth for a mountain glacier--even a mountain glacier that is in retreat over a longer time scale.
During the summer, the snow cover might melt off, directly exposing ice. Of course, if it's warm enough to melt the snow cover, it's warm enough to melt the ice too.
Sublimation does happen on high mountains but mostly to steep or vertical ice faces, which do not develop a protective cover of snow during the winter.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
and not merely assume their position endorses the entire denialist agenda.
I'm curious now, what exactly do you consider to be the denialist agenda? As far as I can tell, there are several different types of denialists: those who say global warming isn't happening, those who say it is happening but is not significant, those who say it is happening but would be better to adapt than to stop using fossil fuels, those who say it is happening but the results will be good.....
In fact, to me it seems denialist is a rhetorical smear term used by those with an agenda to push, placed on those who oppose their agenda. Dividing the world into 'deniers' and 'believers' is a technique I utterly despise.
Qxe4
Our society has grown up under the climactic conditions that have been prevailing since the retreat of the last glaciation. By definition, changes in our current environmental conditions are going to result in things like changes in rainfall patterns (affecting crops), changes in sea level (as Antarctica and Greenland ice sheets melt), and the resulting human migrations and social changes. So, in answer to your question: yes, deviation from the current conditions are bad. This is not a hard concept to understand.
Whether or not it's fair for developing countries to be exempted from carbon limits, from the perspective of a 1st world person, is kind of beside the point. Whether we can get China onboard is one issue, and getting our own house in order is another. We shouldn't link one to the other - the idea that no one can do anything until everyone is ready to do something is a recipe for stasis.
Note the "all caps speak" as well as generous use of bold all caps and exclamation marks.
Sadly, sometimes you must use such a crude language and sacrifice lower caps in order to explain something to someone on the other side of the intellectual barrier.
Simplifications and over-explanations such as "it is colder on the mountain the higher up you go" are also crucial when trying to translate something to Moron.
You see... Morons don't have the mental capacity to understand such concept when they are bound to single word.
So you must cast you net very wide and stretch the concept such as "Mount Everest==cold" over many words.
And you can't just "think in Moron" as that would get you nowhere, and would kind of defeat the purpose of your argument.
Also, note the difference from the tone of my second post in this particular thread which was written in Idiot.
Very similar BUT with Idiot you MUST think in that particular language.
Otherwise it all just gets lost in translation.
That means the ice DOES naturally melt at certain times of the year, so the time of year that the new photo was taken IS relevant, and conspicuously absent from the article.
Indeed, it IS relevant.
Particularly since Mallory's Reconnaissance Expedition was there from July to September 1921, the part of the year we here on the Northern half of the planet Earth like to refer to as "summer" - which is characteristically related to longer and hotter days.
While on the other hand David Breashears took those shots in April of 2010.
Part of the year known as "spring", characteristically related to still relatively lower temperatures (compared to that "summer" thing) and high chances of rainfall. Which translates into snowfall high up in the mountains, naturally.
Oh and, glaciers don't disappear over the summer.
We are talking permanent ice caps here consisting of HUGE chunks of ice in a very cold environment.
The fact that they are powering all those rivers mentioned in TFA should be telling you something.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
At one time, for example, people thought the melting glaciers off Kilimanjaro was caused by global warming, but it turned out it was mainly caused by deforestation.
The deglaciation of Kilimanjaro is not due to just one cause. Anyone who says it is, isn't really fully considering the problem.
Anyone who claims that deglaciation is due to any one cause isn't fully considering the problem. Maybe you ought to reconsider rephrasing your first paragraph so it's not inconsistent with the second?
I am a devoted Christian and I must comment on a couple of things from your post.
Every single prophecy in the book has come true so far.
Prophecy as understood by the inspired authors has little to do with predicting the future. It has everything to do with opening the eyes of the people to what's going on in the here and now. Isiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Micah, all of the major and minor prophets, were anointed by God to speak the truth of the day, which is unfortunately quite relevant to us today as well. The "predictions" are God's message about what kind of life the people were getting themselves into. We have our modern day prophets: Martin Luther King, Jr. is an oft-cited example and many of his prophetic speeches and writings about social justice beyond racial equity have been suppressed, not unlike what the ancient prophets experienced in their day. The truth is that we are all called to be prophets to one another. We need that to keep society going
Scientists have used it to find geological locations due to its historical accuracy.
The bible is not nor was it ever meant to be a history book in the sense we understand the term in our modern society. At the time the books were written, the historical focus was not writing down exactly what happened with attention to every fine detail. The intent was to convey how God is active in our lives and what kind of relationship we can have with God. That this or that specific thing actually happened is not important. What's important is the overall message of relationship, love and salvation.
Are there points of history in the bible that are validated with out modern scientific methods. Absolutely. Anyone who has studied ancient history understands that. Are there other points that are questionable with little hope of being "proven?" Yep. But for the Christian, it really makes no difference at all. The history isn't the point. The message is.
I didn't claim that deglaciation (or in this case, the deglaciation of Kilimanjaro) was due to any one cause.
Qxe4
Please explain the mechanism.
One such mechanism is that you can choose the researchers you fund. Then, results that jive with your purpose will be over-represented. I'm not saying that such a thing is happening here, because I don't think that there is enough funding to skew results in favor of AGW, but we should remember that cigarette companies planted uncertainty in the danger associated with smoking. Eventually the more correct result does reign I think, but there are advantages to lengthening the period of uncertainty.
Here is a photo of my house in winter, covered in snow. Here is a photo of my house in summer, surrounded by green, leafy trees. From this, we can deduce that global warming has forever changed my local environment. The snow, which we know from the first photograph has always been here, is now gone forever, as proven by the second photograph.
You mean the way that the grant money at the CRU went from thousands to millions? Oh that's right, that was for supportingAGW.
Please provide some evidence for you assertion regarding the reverse. Everything I have seen says that in total the usual suspects (oil companies, coal companies, etc) have spent more money on grants to AGW promoters than they have to AGW skeptics. In addition, there are all those organizations that have billions tied up betting on the policy changes that AGW Alarmists promote (GE, etc).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Sorry, Crow, I didn't research properly on your comment's context. I was referring to what is common knowledge to Botanists et al. "I find it hard to put too much concern in climate readings that only go back about 100 years" is what I was responding to. My bad.
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
That Bluish bit trickling off down the middle of the valley is the tap about to run dry for a whole lot of people. You're welcome!
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
So the UN was off by 10 years? That is the chief complaint?
Our glacial is are melting and we are bitching about who is more wrong in the estimation, instead of bitching about nothing being done to prevent it in the first place.
Well, if you're super poor, and burning wood or dung for fuel, the availability of cheap oil (and therefore cheap kerosene, or gasoline) can make a huge difference in quality of life.
Available energy per capita maps quite nicely to quality of life, so if you're trying to help the poorest of the poor, making energy cheaper is the best way to raise them out of poverty, period.
I'm curious now, what exactly do you consider to be the denialist agenda? As far as I can tell, there are several different types of denialists
You are correct of course, though I don't think the last two categories, especially the penultimate, you list can properly be labelled 'denialist.' To satisfy your curiosity, it was perhaps a poor choice of words. My point was nothing more than that one cannot take, for (an extreme) example, Pielke's position that fossil fuel combustion is not the major contributor to observed change, as supporting the position I once saw put that the C02 forcing is thermodynamically impossible.
In fact, to me it seems denialist is a rhetorical smear term ...
Well it's certainly no compliment! But are we forbidden from using negative terms for people who do negative things?
You can use it even without having an agenda to push, surely?
Dividing the world into 'deniers' and 'believers' is a technique I utterly despise.
I'm clearly not making that division. Rather, as ought to be clear from the post you are responding to, I'm dividing those who disagree with the consensus position on climate change into sceptics (based both on expertise and the scientific nature of their opposition) and denialists (based on their denial of empirically verifiable "facts" and their FUD techniques). It's my opinion that the latter stymie scientific progress while the former foster it.
It's a division I need to make because calling people who uncritically accept any quackery which supports their preconceived ideas "sceptics," sticks in my craw.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
I'm suggesting equating standpoints you don't like with holocaust denialism trivializes the holocaust and its unsavoury denialists.
Sure, and personally I wouldn't use the term to describe people who merely have a standpoint I don't like. I would restrict it's use to people who practise denialism, of whatever flavour. Nor is calling a climate science denialist a 'denialist' equating them with a holocaust denialist, though obviously for some people a connotation is raised. Climate denialists clearly do not necessarily deny that the holocaust happened. OTOH, some similarities in their MO, --eg. the quack-chemistry which proves the Zyklon-B could not possibly have been used to gas victims and the quack-climatology which proves that human activity could not possibly play a role in observed climate change, --cannot be ignored.
In any case, what's the hangup with holocaust deniers anyway? They're a harmless enough bunch of nutters. Sure they cause offence, but how many people have been killed as a result of David Irving's writings? Constrast this to the effect of Thabo Mbeki's endorsement of AIDS denialism in facilitating the spread of HIV, at a time when it was perhaps the most critical to take action. And though it is too early to tell, to the best of our current knowledge the human misery to which climate denialists are contributing will be orders of magnitude greater still. Really for a genocidal ;) climate science denialist to complain about comparison to an unsavory holocaust denier seems like a murderer complaining of being compared to a pick-pocket.
Trying to tar your opponents with that particular brush is an unworthy tactic ...
OK, let's recap what's happened in this thread. Someone made a joke which used the word 'denialist,' someone else tried the reverse Godwin "you're calling us holocaust deniers," and I pointed out that denialism is a term which covers much more than merely holocaust denialism. Personally if I hear the unmarked case 'denialist' I assume we are talking climate nowadays. Some people would have us believe they think of holocaust deniers and that they are unable to separate the terms even when the case is marked with "climate science," or "AIDS" or whatever. Twenty years from now when some new species of denialist is properly called a denialist they might well retort "oh you are calling me a climate denialist." Can't be helped.
Again personally I'll leave it to the denialists to "convince" with whatever persuasion techniques they choose to employ. Well no I won't leave them, I'll just call a spade a spade. You are free to be offended by that.
Now, 'uncritical skepticism' I might buy as a term. Think about it.
For some odd reason it makes me think of the line from Scott, "Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive." You would prefer so palpable a contradiction in terms to a clear word which accurately denotes the activity the perpertor is engaged in?!
You see, as a sceptic, it's my time to be offended at the idea that propagandists who spread lies and undermine science should be honoured with this term. Note also that I distinguish climate sceptics from climate denialists.
It seems that there are people out there who simply want to prohibit the use of a particular term with a very clearly defined meaning from ever being employed because of their particular political sensitivities. That's just like Hitler!
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
No it wasn't, it was for researching climate.
More baseless ad-hominem attacks. I'm geting bored.
The reason for that is simple - AGW "skeptics" don't do any science, so obviously they don't get funding to do research.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
did anyone notice slashdot's story has 1929 for the pictures being taken ... but the article lists 1921 and that the original photographer died in 1924 ...
a correction is maybe needed ??
my 2 ... no change needed ...
my 2 cents
But if that were the case there would be a group of researchers who have published papers that refute the "consensus" on AGW, then given up because they can't get any grants, or reversed their positions and started getting money.
Where are they?
Watch this Heartland Institute video
1986 happened and a lot of people did die. The old plants you pretend were good enough were modified a lot after that wake up call, and others that couldn't be were shut down.
Gotta love the use of new technology on this article: photography. It makes us wonder how this hadn't been noticed earlier. Sounds as if denialists are really denying reality.
It's a division I need to make because calling people who uncritically accept any quackery which supports their preconceived ideas "sceptics," sticks in my craw.
The use of the term denialist in global warming context is frequently used to smear anyone who disagrees with the 'orthodox' view of global warming (or any government program related to AGW).
Instead, for these people, use the term 'idiot,' or if you are trying to be more helpful (for example if you are talking to their face), 'uninformed.' This will give them a clear path to bettering themselves (they need to inform themselves), plus it tends to isolate them from the conversation (if they persist point them to places they can inform themselves) until they get smarter.
If you prefer to use the term denialist, you should make clear how you are using the word, otherwise people might assume you are trying to smear anyone who disagrees with the 'orthodox' view of global warming, even intelligent people, when in fact you are just trying to smear idiots.
Qxe4
I keep waiting, at my beach house, for the water levels to rise. And waiting. And waiting. I thought that with the reported rise in global temperatures due to human activity, that I would see it. I guess that water levels rising due to human caused global warming has its own physics and does not rise in all places around the world. Just those out of the way places where false reports cannot be verified by little ol' me sitting on my local beach for the past fifty years and watching the water at the same level. There has been one recent change on my beach–an occasional tar ball from that little leak off-shore.
Let's pretend you don't know this yet : anyone who's "against global warming" in the democrat party is a whole lot more against nuclear power.
Let's pretend, however unlikely it sounds, that this is a discovery for you.
example :
http://www.green-blog.org/2009/03/18/al-gore-nuclear-power-is-not-the-answer-to-our-energy-and-climate-crisis/
“It’s always nice when people agree with you. We’ve maintained that nuclear power is a dangerous distraction to the real solutions to the climate crisis for a long time now. It’s dirty, it’s unsafe, it’s a threat to world peace and it is terribly, terribly expensive.”
When people are starting to use multiple unfounded insults to describe something, it generally means they don't like it.