Slashdot Mirror
Rising Temperatures Could Melt Most Himalayan Glaciers By 2100 (nationalgeographic.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The New York Times: Rising temperatures in the Himalayas, home to most of the world's tallest mountains, will melt at least one-third of the region's glaciers by the end of the century (Warning: source may be paywalled; alternative source) even if the world's most ambitious climate change targets are met, according to a report released Monday. If those goals are not achieved, and global warming and greenhouse gas emissions continue at their current rates, the Himalayas could lose two-thirds of its glaciers by 2100, according to the report, the Hindu Kush Himalaya Assessment. Under those more dire circumstances, the Himalayas could heat up by 8 degrees Fahrenheit (4.4 degrees Celsius) by century's end, bringing radical disruptions to food and water supplies, and mass population displacement. Glaciers in the Hindu Kush Himalayan Region, which spans over 2,000 miles of Asia, provide water resources to around a quarter of the world's population. One of the most complete studies on mountain warming, the Hindu Kush Himalaya Assessment was put together over five years by 210 authors. The report includes input from more than 350 researchers and policymakers from 22 countries.
No, they are going to melt by 2035. Count on it.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Occam's Razor is a philosophical precept, not a conspiracy.
Troll harder.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
But, you'll still need to convince both governments that it's a problem.
You don't need to convince China's government. China takes AGW seriously. They have more installed solar capacity than any other country, and much more under construction. They are building nukes, installing wind turbines, and investing in electric cars.
India ... not so much. Democracies have difficulty dealing with long timeline problems.
So why should those governments be concerned, when they will be getting more water - not less?
Because the glaciers act as a reservoir, releasing a steady stream throughout the year. Without glaciers, you get floods and droughts depending on season and weather patterns.
That's great, but we are talking about the glaciers, not the cycle you just mention. ... did you forgot your IQ hat this morning?
The cycle he mentions would not exist without glaciers
That cycle would continue - and with higher average temperatures, that means greater water evaporation from the oceans, leading to more moisture falling in the mountains, thus more runoff for the rivers. ... sorry, are you that stupid? Half of your posts are quite ok, but this above is utter stupidity.
Yes, as a flood
Glaciers mean: a big deal of the water that comes freezes and is stored.
Glaciers mean: a continuous flow of water while they melt/move, regardless of rain
Can't be so hard to grasp that there is a huge difference in how "the climate" and the cycle of life works with versus without glaciers.
When we lose the glaciers in Europe, aka the most important in the Alps, north Italy will probably survive, middle will be a desert, same for Tchechia, south Poland, east German, the water comes from the mountains, not form random rain which might increase or not increase.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
To demonstrate who is actually the brainwashed idiot, consider this: Trump has, on at least 7 occasions, acknowledged that the climate is warming, and that humans likely play a role in that.
You were never told about this because it disrupts the narrative mouth-breathing, sniveling fucking morons like you mindlessly feed on.
Trump has made fun of the global warming panic, and the people who blatantly push it as a means of edging towards their Marxist Communist goals and the destruction of America (both from outside and within).
William of Ockham did not say his famous razor, nor did he imply it. What he meant was, if you were to choose between competing theories, it's better to choose the one with the fewest assumptions, not the one that is less complicated. He certainly did not intent to claim that the one with fewer assumptions was the truer one, but the one more easy to test the truth of.
Parading out "Occam's Razor" is the same as whataboutism or truthiness. The TEDx intellectual crowd who don't read enough nor are willing to utilize critical thinking about what they are told is correct by authorities they already agree with.
Citation for your 30% figure please. Mining and transportation are also necessary for coal but I bet they aren't included in typical coal-plant CO2 figures either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Coal 1050 g co2/kWh
Solar 32 g co2/kWh
Wind 10 g co2/kWh
Most other studies are in the same ballpark, i.e two orders of magnitude. Wind power has around 1% of the life cycle carbon footprint of coal burning and solar 3%. The really funny part here is the idea hat the CO2 footprint involved in mining a metric ton of coal is going to be a significant part of the life-cycle greenhouse emissions caused by burning that ton of coal, coal is pretty much pure carbon. The weight ratio of CO2 produced per octane molecule burned is roughly 3 to 1. The burning of the coal creates orders of magnitude more CO2 over the lifespan of a coal power plant than producing and operating a solar array or wind farm for the same period. In the case of wind and solar, after the carbon created during manufacture, your CO2 footprint is limited to the carbon produced by maintenance activities. On top of that solar and wind are more cost effective and they also aren't subject to fluctuations in fuel prices.