World's Largest Tropical Glacier Vanishing

Socguy wrote with a link to a CBC article about the rapidly disappearing Peruvian glacier known as the Quelccaya ice cap. The world's largest tropical glacier was a hot topic this past Thursday at the meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Glaciologist Lonnie Thompson, and a team of Ohio state scientists, produced the stunning news that Quelccaya and similar formations are melting at a rate of some 60 metres per year. While polar ice caps have commanded attention in the discussion of global warming to date, these tropical caps are crucial to the well-being of ecosystems relying on an influx of mountain stream fresh water.

Re:influx of mountain stream fresh water

[nebosuke]

Glaciers help to trap more water during the winter than would otherwise remain in the area, and regulate its dispersal.

To imagine the first part of the above, imagine, for a moment, a bank account. Initialy you are just skimming off the interest on the principal. At some point, however, you start dipping into the principal itself. While a portion of the principal remains, you will be receiving more cash than you were while you were just drawing on the interest. When it runs out, however, you no longer have any principle generating interest

The second part is equally important. Do you want your water supply for the year to come down in regular, year-round melt water or a brief flash flood following each significant precipitation event?

Re:Emerging from an ice age will have that effect

[marimbaman]

Nice work selectively citing the minority of papers that support your position. Most climate scientists not funded by Big Oil will tell you that we are indeed altering the balance of the Earth.

Oh and, even if you believe global warming is a natural phenomenon, you should still be worried. After all, whatever wiped out the dinosaurs was also a natural phenomenon.

http://xkcd.com/c164.html [xkcd.com]

Anonymous cowards

[alshithead]

Why is it that only anonymous cowards tend to disclaim global warming? ALL of the most recent observations of really important glaciers (read as heavily utilized) tend to point to the fact that most of them are disappearing at a scary rate. If you rely on glacier melt for fresh water, you are most probably fucked...next year, 5 years, 25 years down the road, it doesn't matter. The time frame is debatable. The end result isn't.

How can any educated person deny that we have seriously affected our world ecosystem? Species are going extinct everywhere, local climates are fluctuating wildly, and I sure as hell won't be buying any land that is close to our current sea level.

We don't understand the world or even local climate science in enough depth. Our actions seem to be causing changes that are mostly unpredictable. Just because we can't categorically prove it doesn't mean that we aren't the cause. The predictions I see as most reasonable are actually some of the worst case scenarios.

Re:What isn't being said?

[GaryPatterson]

You posit that some glaciers are advancing, but this is unreported.

Why do you suspect this? How do you know? Is it likely that there aren't any glaciers advancing?

I've never heard anything to back up your position, so it seems like you're trying to sow some doubt here without any evidence behind you. I'm happy to debate, but you've got to bring something to the table.

Re:When will the denials stop?

[anagama]

Well, there is some ice core evidence that the current rapid rate of overall increases is unusual. Whether humans are the total cause or not is probably debatable, but in some ways irrelevant. Let's try an analogy:

• Imagine it is high summer with a temp approaching 85 degrees F.
• You are inside your house with the heat on, windows closed.
• You are sweating, uncomfortable, and wish it would be cooler

If you're a pickup truck republican wingnut, you go turn on your AC to counter the heat and ignore the fact you are partly at fault for the uncomfortable environment in your house.

If you are a rational person, you recognize that you are having an impact on the environment within your house. You turn off the heat and open the windows. After a while, you're still on the warm side because it's 85 out, but you aren't ridiculously uncomfortable.

Note: 85 feels hot to me, replace this figure with whatever you're aclimated to.

You're missing something

[knorthern knight]

Current/Past situation...
- snow falls and accumulates into snowpack over the winter
- snowpack melts during spring and summer, supplying water for irrigation during the growing season
- snowpack doesn't melt completely during summer. This means there's a reserve that can handle a couple of dry years

Future situation
- rain falls during the winter and runs off to the sea
- no water during the summer
- a couple of dry winters makes things even worse

Do you have any idea how huge a dam you'd need to hold water equivalant to the snow cover on a mountain range?

Re:Global Warming

[Kenshin]

Question: Do you really want the Americans moving HERE when it gets too hot?

As long as they think it's snowing all year round here, we're mostly safe from them.

Re:When will the denials stop?

[DeadChobi]

Hey, I'm a skeptic too, but there is indeed evidence that at least some of the warming is human-caused. Of course, it's also possible that the earth has very slightly shifted its orbit too, and that what humans are doing is simply forcing some oscillation that takes place over many thousands of years. I mean forcing as in forced harmonic oscillation.

That said, unless we can somehow damp the oscillation we're going to be very warm indeed if the trend continues.

Also, there was another post earlier characterizing all global warming skeptics as backward-thinking fundamentalist christians who believe in intelligent design. That kind of characterization contributes nothing to the discussion, It just sets up a straw man for everyone else to viciously attack. It's not funny, it's not insightful, and it's not intelligent. I'm sure if you look through my history of posts I've said stupid stuff like that too. However, it's been my experience that if you want to convince anyone of anything you can't go around calling them a moron or you're going to get the door slammed in your face.

Re:When will the denials stop?

[Doc Ruby]

Maybe the thousands of climate scientists who say humans are pushing climate change over the edge somehow overlooked that research. No one at NASA ever discusses their research, so it might have gone unnoticed.

You just saved the world from the ignorant climate scientists! Have another cookie.

Re:Global Warming

[Climate Shill]

On the subject of Global Warming, allow me to be the first Canadian to say YES, YES, AWESOME, FUCK YEAH!

Say, that's some nice climate you have there buddy ! And only a few hours tank drive away !

Attitudes Towards Dissent

[Shihar]

For the same reason why people post as AC whenever it is on a topic where there is a strong majority opinion opposing them; they know that they are likely to get modded into hell and have their precious karma torn apart.

One thing that does and always has moderate me is that when the group think really gets going it can result in comments that are certainly insightful/informative/whatever getting modded down because they are going against the consensus of the group. The point of the moderation system is not to sit around jerking each other off about how much you agree. The point of discussion is to explore different points of view, debate, pontificate, and in general act like intellectuals who are not afraid of dissidents from the group.

I personally think that glaciers melting is a bad thing and that humans probably can take a hunk of the blame for it. That said, it pisses me off when I see completely reasonable arguments to the opposite getting modded down as flames, trolls, or (the slightly more reasonable) overrated. At the same time, we get a dozen one line "See!!!! When will people realize global warming is real!!!!" post modded up like that actually brings something intelligent to the conversation.

This isn't a battle to mod the other sides opinion into oblivion. The point is to actually converse. People are posting as AC because the environment of conversation is completely broken when it comes to this topic. Utter crap that agrees with the majority opinion is getting modded up, and well thought out arguments against the majority opinion are getting slammed down. People shouldn't have to post AC to post a dissenting opinion.

Re:When will the denials stop?

[Planesdragon]

There is still NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that the temperature changes we're seeing nowadays aren't [just] part of some long term cyclical effect that we haven't yet been able to detect,

Wrong. We have the (rapidly shrinking) antarctic ice, whose layers of melt-and-freeze give us a record stretching back some 65,000 years. In all that time -- eight times longer than since the dawn of civilization -- we can observe correlating CO2 and temperature levels. In all of those cycles, not ONCE has the CO2 gotten to the point where it is now.

If it's a "long-term" effect, it's long-term in a species-ending geological sense. It may be "just natural", but if so it'll still end us if we don't do something to offset and moderate it.

And, even if it's just a natural cycle, embracing the scientific status quo is a means for American Profit. Or do you really think that somehow all of the American genius vanished after WWII? A new paradigm that rewards innovation will mean American profits. Maybe different Americans, maybe the same Americans -- but unless you own a large GM portfolio, you really don't care.

Re:When will the denials stop?

[optimusNauta]

I cannot believe that people would mark something like this as 'informative.' First of all, this view is only partially relevant when talking about America and perhaps Western Europe. If you look at other nations, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, hunger is a problem now, even without drastic climate change, because there isn't enough food produced for all the people there. Imagine if climate change caused the desert of the Sahara to shift south, or if longer rainy seasons destroyed fragile ecosystems, causing crops to fail. The entire continent could starve, and little could be done about it.

Looking back at the United States, particularly at Katrina, it is unfair to say that only the local government was to blame. Other areas are not as bad off as New Orleans because New Orleans is an urban area, with a much higher population density and less sturdy construction, in addition to being below sea-level, allowing it to flood. Furthermore, state emergence planning for catastrophes is based on what might be called a good-neighbor policy. If one parish or community is destroyed by a natural disaster, others nearby are supposed to come to its aid. In the case of Katrina, the entire area surrounding New Orleans was devastated, so of course the state was unable to respond. In such a situation, it is the obligation of the Federal government to step in and provide the necessary aid. Even with some delay in calling for FEMA, FEMA should have had a more realistic view of what was going on and been better prepared to handle this particular emergency, which many people have predicted for decades.

Ultimately, the reason that climate change is such a big problem is that its effects are unpredictable. Governments are not fast enough to react to unanticipated disasters, as evidenced by Katrina, because they don't have crisis plans ready to put into action. Combine a many sided die and very poor coverage of the possible outcomes, and it is very likely that global climate change could cause not just one but several national and international emergencies in the coming years.

Re:When will the denials stop?

[Doc Ruby]

"Global Cooling" is a BS red herring that only Greenhouse deniers like you take "seriously".
SARS is still a serious threat of epidemic, after killing thousands where it has spread in China.
Bird flu is an even greater epidemic threat, already starting to kill dozens of humans where it has spread in SE Asia/Pacific, and thousands of birds now starting to be found in Europe.
Mad cow disease has killed people and is still a threat, even though many thousands of cattle have been destroyed to stop it due to regulation.
Overpopulation and mass starvation continue to kill/abuse millions in Africa, Asia and South America.

Smog has caused asthma among millions of people and many other health problems, even though it has been largely checked by regulation.
Acid rain destroyed lots of trees and public art before being largely checked by regulation.
Ozone depletion and skin cancer is still a serious problem, even though it's been checked by regulation.

Those last few, atmospheric pollution problems, are the most representative. Each of them was faced with the kind of arrogant, ignorant scoffing you still push on them, despite their having been proven manmade and stoppable without the kind of doom you people always say will ensue if regulations stop it. So thank you for making the point that despite many successes in identifying real disasters, then waiting for industry to stop based on just education, then actually regulating them to save ourselves from global pollution, we still face loud ignorant yapping from people like you who ignore science and history.

It's too bad we have to save the denial addicts like you as we save ourselves, but that's what "global" means. You're welcome.

Re:When will the denials stop?

[anagama]

Would a Democrat Tree Hugger leave the heat turned on and notice that he's responsible for it being hot?

Yes. That was the point of the analogy -- the "tree hugger" upon recognizing his complicity in being uncomfortable, takes reasonable steps to minimize that discomfort. And of course, the warming deniers are largely from the right wing. If you feel it makes the right wing look foolish, well, that was the point. If you don't want to look like clowns, take off the squeeky noses.

Re:When will the denials stop?

[fucksl4shd0t]

Heh, I'll bite.

My main issue with this global warming thing isn't the scientific fervor, it's the political ball it's become. You see, the scientific fervor, imo, derives from the way scientists are generally treated by politicians and businessmen. If you're a scientist, and your research indicates someone will or should stop making money, or that potentially unpopular laws should be passed, you're hated by the powers that be. So I suspect something of a martyr syndrome going through the scientific community over this, and am willing to disregard hysterics from the scientific community for that reason.

However, they are smart people who know what they're talking about. They could be wrong, but I don't really see how any of the recommended measures, if taken incrementally to make the money-grubbing politicians and blood-sucking lawyers happy, will be bad for us on the whole. We get more efficient technology out of the deal, significant technological advances, and serious improvements in living conditions in exchange for what? Recognizing we might be capable of trashing our planet? Sounds good to me!

But what really irks me is the way politicians are playing the science card and trying to manipulate the scientific community. The damage we might suffer on the whole as a result of the fight is imo far greater than the damage we might cause to ourselves via global warming.

Does it even matter if the globe is warming?

[ddoctor]

The world seems to be of the opinion that the existence of global warming proves we are fucking up this planet... and it's non-existence would prove that we're fine... as if global warming is the ONLY environmental issue there is, and if we can solve that, we're fine. Jeebus!

What about deforestation? Air quality? Mass extinctions? Loss of biodiversity? Water availability and quality? Overpopulation? Non-renewable resource shortages? Nuclear waste? Landfill?

Anyone tasted the air in peak hour traffic in a major city? Isn't that enough to prompt some action?

We don't have to prove the earth is warming for us to realise the damage we are doing! It's a RED HERRING! It's just one issue. What if we solve global warming... then what? Will our attitudes have changed? Will we still be pumping sewage in the ocean, burning coal and cutting down all the trees?

Global Warming isn't a problem unto itself... its a symptom of our abuse of this planet. It's only a poster-boy issue. Both sides need to stop debating - it doesn't matter whether global warming is happening or not. It's OBVIOUS the damage we're doing... that should be enough to prompt us to fix it.

Just a natural phenomenon

[Ace905]

I'm so sick of all the left-wing zealots going crazy over news like this.

Global Warming is a simple, natural phenomenon whereby the planet destroys a large percentage of it's population - including humanity, and then starts over again.

Nothing to worry about.

---
Too large a percentage? [douginadress.com]

What to do. . .

[Fantastic Lad]

Things are changing now rapidly on this world of ours.

Items of note:

1. Dangerous climate change.
2. UFO weirdness, crop-circles and continuing cattle mutilations.
3. War and the preparation for really big war with the apparent goal of the annihilation of all the Semites, (both Jew and Arabic; same blood and similar DNA qualities.)
4. Big rocks falling from the sky; enough to wipe out humanity.
5. Preparations in place for total military lock-down of North America.

Uh. . , what the heck?

So, in such times as these, what is one to do?

Here are a few ideas which will NOT work. . .

1. Ignore it by distracting yourself with TV and video games in the hope that it will all go away.
This is silly for a couple of reasons, the first being that, obviously, it will not work, and secondly, that the coolest show on Earth is currently unfolding. Why would anybody want to miss watching it? The end of the world as we know it isn't the sort of thing happens every day!

2. Get down on your knees and pray to the holy whatchamacallit, mecca, guy on a cross, Jehovah lord of destruction. Religion is a BAD plan. In fact, it was mucked about with so that it became the plan to get all the silly humans to line up and shoot each other, (as we are witnessing in the Middle East.) Christ was a decent guy with a lot of great ideas, but very few of them survived in the bible and similar documents. Essentially, what he said was: "We are all one, all connected. Do unto your brother as you would do unto yourself. The kingdom of Heaven is not up in the sky. It's within you. We are all infinite creatures and though we live beneath the veil of forgetting, we have access to that infinity at all times. So love, forgive and do not judge, just do the best you can." He might well have added, "Do not go to church and don't expect anybody to 'rapture' you away. That's all a lie designed to distract you from working on the self. Nobody can deal with your baggage for you no matter how hard you 'believe'; your troubles in this world are your challenges to work through; they are your gifts to yourself and I'm certainly not going to take them away from you. How can you grow if somebody takes away your challenges, if you stop thinking for yourself? Do not follow. Not following is a key."

3. Trust in Science. Science is a great thing, but we're not going to be ducking out on the coming lessons through some kind of Star Trek quick-fix.

So what CAN be done?

Well. . , for starters, it would be a good idea to learn as much as you can about everything. Look into all those pesky conspiracy theories and happenings which are the focus of so much disdain among the sceptic-folk. I know a lot of people who haven't ever looked into any non-mainstream material because they don't want to look silly and instead quote lots of sceptic explanations for weird phenomenon which look great on paper and sound soothingly reasonable until you actually look closely at the material in question and realize that there is far, far more to it all than can ever be covered up by a few clever rationalizations. And it's precisely this weird stuff that orthodox culture doesn't want you looking at too closely at which is rapidly shaping our reality. That's the stuff to study, because without a full understanding of it all, you simply won't be able to deal with all the changes coming. Be warned, though: those who are not successfully turned away from looking are often caught up in the second tier of control; 95% of what you will find is twisted nonsense, much like the bible/koran/torah. You have to use your brain, trust your instincts and dis-trust your feelings. (Feelings can easily be manipulated.)

The second thing you need to do is to make a choice: Are you primarily here to serve yourself, or to serve others? Dark-side/Light-side. You have to choose and choose soon. Those who sit on the fence are doomed to repeat the whole ugly cycle on this planet in this lower vibra

Re:What isn't being said?

[LarsWestergren]

So if they've been retreating since 1850, how are cars to blame?

Climate has always gone through fluctuations, what is frightening now is the how much bigger the change is, and how quickly it happens. I don't know how many times we have to explain this.

The world has been warming way longer than cars have been around.

Greenhouse gas emissions have been around longer than cars, it has been inceasing steadily since the start of the Industrial Revolution.

I'm tired of all this bullshit about our generation killing the Earth.

Being tired of it is not a rational argument for whether it is true or not. Sorry.

Re:Humans

[Alioth]

Actually, it's not the planet we should worry about. If we annihilated ourselves tomorrow in a nuclear war, the planet would shrug it off. If we burned every ounce of oil in two weeks, the planet would shrug it off. In 500 million years time, the Earth would still be there, just without humans.

We aren't trying to protect the planet - we are trying to protect ourselves. Concern about global warming is nothing to do with saving the planet, it has everything to do with saving ourselves.

If our technological and industrial society is to survive, we have to address these issues and make sure we still have a relatively cheap energy source that doesn't (long term) threaten the existence of that society. If, through hubris, we allow this society to collapse, there cannot be another industrial revolution for a few hundred million years - because all of the easy-to-get-at resources have been used up: the low hanging fruit of easy to get coal and oil has gone - you now need a technologically advanced society to actually exploit these. We have one chance at surviving long term, otherwise humanity will be doomed to a Middle Ages style existence until it finally dies out.

The planet on the other hand doesn't need saving. The sun has another 5 billion years of main sequence, and the Earth will shrug anything off. However, our society cannot do the same. _All_ concern at doing things to not pollute the environment is not for the purpose of 'saving the planet', it's for the purpose of 'saving human civilization'!

Epithets

[Garrett Fox]

I'll just take issue here with the epithets being used here: "denial addicts" and "Greenhouse deniers." The first dismisses anyone who disagrees with the GW hypothesis as mentally unsound -- that is, they disagree because they're just crazy. The second is apparently a calculated attempt to compare anyone who disagrees with GW to a "Holocaust denier," implying that those who disagree are evil and murderous. Similarly, some writer recently gave the opinion that the "deniers" should be brought before a "climate Nuremburg" trial to punish them for delaying action on climate change through their sin of expressing the wrong opinions. Both terms are useful for winning an argument through name-calling, but they don't add much to the substance of the debate.

Re:Does it even matter if the globe is warming?

[mike2R]

But you miss the BIG PICTURE - MAN is evil, and more importantly CAPITALISM is unnatural and the USS are the Great Satan!

sigh.. do you always form your judgements on an idea based on the opinions of it's nuttiest supporters. Yes there are vocal people who believe pretty much what you say - given that you don't respect their opinions (who does?) why do you let them influence your thinking on this issue?

It's like saying open source is made by evil anarchists because some idiot teenager DOSed SCO's website.

Re:When will the denials stop?

[ArcherB]

But, with these issues, measures where taken to make sure things didn't spread etc, couldn't it have been that many of these measures, you know, WORKED?

Well, that's the Catch-22 we all face. If global warming wipes out man-kind as many have suggested, or at least a large portion of it, many will say, "See, we told you so but you wouldn't listen. Now see what YOU did." Even if all forms of energy are banned, you'll say, "YOU waited too long and now it's too late. YOU should've listened!" Of course, any theories that global warming is a natural form of climate change (change, meaning warmer or cooler, it has to go one way or the other!) will be rejected outright.

On the other hand, if disaster doesn't strike and global warming is no big deal, then people like you will pay yourselves on the back saying, "Good thing we sounded the alarm or we'd all be dead now. Good job everyone!"

Re:When will the denials stop?

[Coryoth]

You know 65,000 years is nothing on a planetary scale.

Two things should be mentioned here. The first is that the OP missed a zero. It is 650,000 years [wikipedia.org]. Secondly, while that may be very small in comparison to the earth's history of some 6.5 billion years, it is quite a lot in comparison to the history of modern humans (only around 200,000 years). Sure things have been different in the past, but then the world was a dramatically different place in the past. What we should concern ourselves with is the environment that the current flora and fauna of the planet are adapted to - because if it changes too fast then some of those species won't manage to adapt to cope swiftly enough. Worse still 650,000 years is a positively massive amount of time compared to human history as settled farming species (around 10,000 years). Shifting climate bands can have a significant impact on where feasible growing areas are, and shifting massive farming infrastructure is not a trivial thing.