The Himalayas and Nearby Peaks Have Lost No Ice In Past 10 Years, Study Shows 409
DesScorp writes "A story from UK's Guardian reports on a study of ice levels from the Himalayas area, and finds that no significant melting has occurred, despite earlier predictions of losses of up to 50 billion tons of ice. 'The very unexpected result was the negligible mass loss from high mountain Asia, which is not significantly different from zero,' said Professor Jonathan Bamber, who also warns that 8 years simply isn't enough time to draw conclusions. 'It is awfully dangerous to take an eight-year record and predict even the next eight years, let alone the next century,' he said." Readers have sent in a few other stories today relating to melting (or persisting) ice around the globe; read on for more.
bonch writes "New research from the University of Colorado concludes that the polar ice caps are melting less than previously thought. Almost 230 billion tons of ice annually melt into the ocean, 30% less than past predictions. The new data comes from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment satellite, which provides more accurate estimates than previous methods." The earth being a complex thing, though, note that these observations don't mean an end to predictions of elevated sea level.
Finally, an anonymous reader writes with another ice story: "NASA's Terra satellite saw a huge crack in the Pine Island Glacier in Antarctica and it is all set to give rise to an iceberg the size of Manhattan! The huge gash in the snow is 30 kilometers (or 19 miles) long and nearly 100 meters wide, and is widening every passing minute. This is expected to create an iceberg more than 900 square kilometer in area, as compared to the 785 square kilometer area of Manhattan, Brooklyn, Staten Island and Bronx combined, said NASA."
Maintaining a balanced position (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the lesson to take away is to strive for a rational, "healthily skeptical" position when presented with climate data. It's just such an unpredictable thing--literally, a complicated system the size of the entire world with a scale spanning molecules, continents, and beyond. The media doesn't help, either--it's drive for alarmism tends to overly simplify or exaggerate situations, and perhaps even the scientists involved get caught up in it.
For example, do you remember how polar bears drowning in the Arctic sea due to global warming were cited as a reason to classify them as an endangered species, and how they were used as a symbol of climate change in Al Gore's movie? The lead scientist was actually placed on administrative leave [humanevents.com], and several questions were raised about how the bears actually died and how the corpses were observed from 1,500 up in a helicopter rather than examined to actually determine their cause of death. Whether or not they were really drowning, there just wasn't enough data to come to the conclusion that was presented to the public with the level of certainty that was conveyed.
Unfortunately, if you're someone who agrees with doing the logical thing--reducing the negative environmental impact of humans as much as possible, within reasonable economic boundaries--the exaggerations and alarmism sweep you away into being on a "side", and you're shoved right in the middle of the mosh pit of tribal politics. If you question a conclusion or suggest a way of doing things, and you maintain a nuanced or balanced position, you get shit on by everybody, and nothing gets accomplished.
George Carlin did an insightful (and profanity-laden) bit on alarmism in modern society [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:2)
I could never figure how that was passed for truth. Damnedable polar bears range everywhere to find whatever they want. Back oh I think it was twoish years ago when I was snowmobiling through Pickle Lake(5ish hours north of Thunder Bay), there were warnings posted of unconfirmed polar bear sightings and travelers should use caution in the wilds. Now those of us who've been in the wilds of ontario well, we're used to black bears, wild cats(cougar/lynx, etc), and all other of other stuff. Normally you don
Re:Maintaining a balanced position (Score:5, Informative)
For example, do you remember how polar bears drowning in the Arctic sea due to global warming were cited as a reason to classify them as an endangered species, and how they were used as a symbol of climate change in Al Gore's movie? The lead scientist was actually placed on administrative leave [humanevents.com], and several questions were raised about how the bears actually died and how the corpses were observed from 1,500 up in a helicopter rather than examined to actually determine their cause of death. Whether or not they were really drowning, there just wasn't enough data to come to the conclusion that was presented to the public with the level of certainty that was conveyed.
The Charles Monnett (polar bear scientist) investigation was likely politically motivated since nothing has come of it, but either way, the agency is on-record saying that his temporary administrative leave was unrelated to his polar bear research. He is back to work as of last August. This entire climate debate is so politically charged that a "rational "healthily skeptical" position" probably doesn't exist.
Director Bromwich:
" I can assure you that the decision had nothing to do with his scientific work, or anything relating to a five-year old journal article, as advocacy groups and the news media have incorrectly speculated. Nor is this a "witch hunt" to suppress the work of our many scientists and discourage them from speaking the truth. Quite the contrary. In this case, it was the result of new information on a separate subject brought to our attention very recently."
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/boemre-director-says-offshore-oil-agency-not-witch-hunt [alaskadispatch.com]
Exactly. (Score:2)
Politically motivated.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
This is Slashdot. Balanced positions mean you're obviously a shill for whatever the argument's opposing.
You're obviously a shill for the rational-thought camp. Most likely Consumers Union, the NHTSA, or maybe PBS. Probably PBS.
Re: (Score:3)
Regarding the polar bear scientist Charles Monett, it seems to be one of those frothy bits that get people excited when someone who said something they didn't like gets the least bit of tarnish. An email from Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement Director Michael Bromwich states:
Re:Maintaining a balanced position (Score:5, Informative)
In fairness to Dr. Monnett's reputation, if you cite the story that he was suspended in July, you should also note that the suspension was lifted several weeks later. Also in the name of fairness you should note that the reason he could not substantiate his observations to the IG's investigators (as reported in the article) is that they'd seized his papers. When those papers were returned the interview notes and other supporting evidence was found in them.
To all appearances this investigation is petering out, if it is not dead already. But let us grant that this is not necessarily the case. If so, *we don't know* the ultimate outcome. But should the investigation ultimately *exonerate* Dr. Monnett and Mr. Gleason, should their work be completely *vindicated*, the damage to their reputation is already done, and through means from which they could not possibly have defended themselves.
You cannot hold up an investigation, especially one with such political implications, as prima facie evidence of guilt. That's just commons sense. It *used* to be called "common decency". Even if the accusations that have been floated are proved true -- an event that seems increasingly unlikely -- the reckless use of the existence of an investigation to sully these men's reputations is repugnant to me. *Anybody* can manufacture an accusation. And any accusation of serious wrongdoing should be investigated. But it is that very necessity which makes the abuse of an investigation's mere *existence* for political ends an intolerable threat to individual liberty.
Re:Skeptical != Scientific (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not so sure. I'd like to see some scientific data to back that up. In the mean time, I will remain skeptical by default.
(Only half joking here)
Re:Skeptical != Scientific (Score:5, Insightful)
I will remain skeptical by default.
Absolutely! It's a sad day when those of us who do accept the mainstream position on this topic feel we have to denounce skepticism (ie. the demand for proof as opposed to mere nay saying) itself, or cannot recognise reports such as these as good news.
Re:Skeptical != Scientific (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not sure how good this news is. From the Guardian article:
The scientists are careful to point out that lower-altitude glaciers in the Asian mountain ranges – sometimes dubbed the "third pole" – are definitely melting. Satellite images and reports confirm this. But over the study period from 2003-10 enough ice was added to the peaks to compensate.
So while the total amount of ice has remained relatively stable it appears the snowfall is moving up in elevation. As the atmosphere warms it can hold more water vapor so a possible cause of the increase in ice at higher elevations is warmer temperatures carrying water vapor higher before it precipitates out. The news may ameliorate some of the concerns over the water delivered by glaciers to the lowlands but it doesn't appear to me to be evidence against global warming.
Re:Fear Mongering (Score:5, Insightful)
Those who are yelling "Global Meltdown", like their "Millennium Bug" counterparts a decade or so ago, are nothing more than fear mongers
They engage in fear mongering for one very specific purpose, and that is, they benefit from public panics
The "Millennium Bug" fear mongers spreaded fears so wide that even ridiculous fear such as "Planes dropping from the sky" were uttered by many
The "Millennium Bug" was little more than a hiccup precisely because the publicity spurred decision-makers to invest huge amounts of effort into reviewing/fixing old systems so that they didn't have problems. Had it not been for the publicity, many of the systems probably would not have been fixed and then there would have been hell to pay (as in "How could you eggheads let this happen?")
It was a no-win situation for IT professionals (at least in terms of the general public's view of them; I hear it was a major win for consulting companies who could scrounge up COBOL programmers)
Re:Fear Mongering (Score:4, Funny)
>>It was a no-win situation for IT professionals (at least in terms of the general public's view of them
We should have taken Newt's advice and let at least a couple big name disaster's happen then.
The only interesting thing from Y2K was my bank sending me a letter thanking me for my -95 years of loyalty to Wells Fargo.
Re:Fear Mongering (Score:4, Insightful)
Here, here!
There's a great blog and book called You're not so smart [youarenotsosmart.com], and it goes into deep discussion of how people think and behave. and for the most part we aren't open to new ideas, we just cherry pick facts to justify our philosophical positions. It actually takes a tremendous amount of intellectual rigor to look at the MANY sides of an idea to come away with some concise idea of where the reality of the situation lands. This by the way is complicated in this modern age by the fact your search engines are designed to help you find what you're looking for. So if you're looking for justification, not only will you find it, but you will soon be virtually unable to find anything else... the engine will be leaned in the direction you push it. Just as an aside, this is one more reason to look for all sides of a conversation, because you want to prevent your primary source of information from becoming so biased that it becomes just another feedback on your point of view.
In the area of global climate change. We have a lot of very interesting information. Greenland is experiencing TREMENDOUS melting events and there is a huge influx of fresh water into the arctic ocean. [reuters.com] The problems with polar bear and brown bears is well understood, including a recent event in which unusually warm coastal water prevents salmon runs in southern Alaska and resulted in serious die off of young brown bears. Glaciers through the Americas, Europe and Africa are disappearing. The loss of glaciers in North America is so pronounced that within 20 years the International Park name "Glacier" may have no glaciers to speak of. Ocean chemistry is changing, and measurable rises in CO2 have resulted in acidification threatening a wide variety of species that require carbonaceous shells (everything from coral to shell fish to crustaceans and their larva.) On the other side, chemical changes have caused a massive increase in ocean jellies (a well known survival response to perceived threat designed to ensure species survival in the face of potential calamity.) We're seeing dramatic shifts in the flowering and fruiting seasons of plant around the world. Shifts in animal migration. Statistical changes in weather patterns consistent with predicted models (increased numbers of floods and droughts and increases in precipitation and storm intensity.) Serious rise in droughts and wildfires in the Western US, Africa and Australia. These are all facts. Part of a larger picture and as some have already said, so complex that we don't understand it. However, we can begin to see patterns emerging. It would be profoundly foolish to ignore these signs, or wait until catastrophic environmental failure became clear and incontrovertible.
Wise money suggests there are a hundred good reasons for looking at ways to conserve energy, become more efficient, find renewable resources and create an energy economy that begins to move people and long term solutions off planet. Wise money suggests that rather than argue and justify a negligent past, it would serve us all best to invent a workable future and to that end, arguing against the impacts of fossil fuels and there growing scarcity would seem (at least to me) like a fools errand.
Re:Skeptical != Scientific (Score:5, Informative)
It's 'healthy' to follow the data and not make any assumptions before you analyze it.
That's what skepticism is.
Re:Skeptical != Scientific (Score:5, Insightful)
Skepticism, always relies on stopping for a moment to think about a story you have read to find gaps in logic.
Hmm, melting ice, obviously if the location has temperatures in the range of -10 degrees and the temperature goes up to -8 degrees you are not going to see a great difference in melting at that location. You might see some interesting changes in glacier fracture due to stresses on 'weaker' ice.
Next up the 2 degree change in temperatures will not necessarily reduce precipitation, in this case snow falls. In fact at this location it will likely increase snow if at lower levels that rise in temperature is exacerbated due to local climatic conditions substantively increasing the moister in the air prior to it's rise to higher altitudes and the resultant increased precipitation occurs.
So all that ever will count are global averages, local areas only count where critical impacts might occur. Say like a storm surges might start flooding down town New York upon a regular basis or record snow falls over the whole of winter make even with a rise in temperature make Vancouver uninhabitable.
The real truth is, how much will it cost to take preventative measures and not need them and how much will it cost to not take preventative measures and need them. Aside from of course the mass execution of all Fossil fuel propagandists, political puppets and their funders. The world will really not be in a forgiving mood, with truly unpredictable changes in human society arising from that catastrophe but those short hair crested rock throwing monkeys have always been vengeful.
Re:Skeptical != Scientific (Score:5, Funny)
Disbelieving things by default isn't really much better, from a scientific perspective, than believing everything you hear.
[Citation Needed]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
[Citation Needed]
here you go [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Is it really wrong? So, one shouldn't question government? Or those that write laws. Or those that are trying to force their own views on people. Or be questioning of persons(or groups) ideological goals that could retrograde civilization? In order to follow data, you have to have data you can trust. If the person or people can't trust the data, they're going to be skeptical.
In turn, the more that people see the blackballing going on by the environmental movement, the more skeptical they become of it
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think you understand what skeptical means.
Re:Skeptical != Scientific (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree. We're far enough into the global warming thing for 100% of scientists to agree that global warming is occurring, and 98% of them to agree that it's somehow caused or contributed to by human activity (those are real statistics in an article I read on the problems of the media trying too hard to present both sides of an argument regardless of the percentages involved; I'm too lazy to provide a link, but hey, so's the grandparent). The "healthy skepticism" sounds like someone trying to sound reasonable while still obviously not wanting to believe that anything bad is really happening.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
[Citation]
Because I am pretty sure the numbers are no where close to your posting.
I'd wager about 84% support the earth is warming, 74% support man influenced warming, 67% warming due to man made CO2, and 14% that the earth is in fact cooling.
As you didn't provide a citation, neither will I.
The 100% claim is essentially correct (Score:4, Insightful)
There is extremely solid evidence that the climate has been getting steadily warmer since the industrial revolution. http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ [nasa.gov]. That holds true even when we take into account things such as cities radiating heat and reduce them from the gathered data. And that holds true even on years when sun activity is low. That's as established fact as anything in the science can be: You can still claim that the earth is flat and call yourself a scientist, if you want to. You won't get much attention in peer reviewed scientific journals, though.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is extremely solid evidence that the climate has been getting steadily warmer since the industrial revolution. http://climate.nasa.gov/ [nasa.gov]
The only two mentions of the industrial revolution on the page you linked to are specifically related to CO2 and ocean acidification, not temperature.
I am wondering what your problem is. Are you so addicted to exaggeration that you can't tell the truth without lying? Or maybe you are so careless in your comprehension that you really think that the page you linked to says something that it does not?
The most laughable part of this non-factual incident that you brought upon yourself is that you could have
You sure can engage in civil conversation! (Score:3)
In your post, you called me "addicted to exaggeration", "liar", "careless in comprehension", "sloppy" and "worthless". You also said that the claims I made were "laughable" and "not supported by facts". The problem is that you spent so much time calling me names that you forgot to... do anything else. Usually I'd dismiss a post like that as obvious flamebait but as someone evidently modded you up, I guess I'll try to find the factual claims there so I can respond.
Apparently, you think I've made some "indu
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The problem is that you spent so much time calling me names that you forgot to... do anything else.
I forgot to do everything but check your citation, find that you were full of it, and then call you out on it.
Your citation clearly and demonstrably does not say what you claim it said, not does any other for that matter because the claim was false, demonstrably so as I so easily did.
It was easy to find a citation to the contrary of your claims because you were talking when you didnt know what you were talking about.
Apparently, you think I've made some "industrial revolution claim" which is partially true.
"There is extremely solid evidence that the climate has been getting steadily warmer s
Re:The 100% claim is essentially correct (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Flooding in Bangladesh due to sea level rise is a feedback from global warming and therefore is caused by climate. A change in the pattern of droughts in Subsaharan Africa could also be due to climate change.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The 100% claim is essentially correct (Score:5, Interesting)
There's also extremely solid evidence that the climate has been much warmer today with ten times the amount of CO2 in the air, and not only was life just grand then, life flourished, and was even more diverse then, then it is today.
Yes, AFTER life adapted to the environment. When the climate shifted rapidly it caused an extinction event. In fact, every time there has been a rapid climate change there has been an extinction event. Only when life has adapted to the new conditions does it "flourish".
You're also equating the world millions of years ago to the world of today, which is naive.
So, we're going to base all of our information on 150-200 years roughly.
Hardly. Paleoclimate reconstructions go back reliably for thousands of years.
With 20-30 years of 'goodish' data, with 5-15 years of not bad data, with 5 years of okay data.
You're confusing weather and climate. Don't do that.
That the earth is warming. Not forgetting that, it's been so much warmer when humans weren't even involved.
Beh.
No one is arguing that. However, the Earth does not warm up just because it wants to. Climate change happens when something about the planet changes. These can be volcanic eruptions, asteroid impacts, extended solar minimums, orbital variations, etc. .
Here's what we are observing. The planet is warming rapidly. The trend started about 100 years or so ago. We have not undergone any noticeable orbital or axial variations. Solar output has not significantly increased or decreased. The Earth does not produce a significant amount of surface heat.
Given all that, come up with a way for the planetary temperature to rise WITHOUT using the significant increases in GHGs and DOESN'T violate the laws of thermodynamics.
Re:The 100% claim is essentially correct (Score:4, Informative)
Your argument is identical to the "we don't know how it was done. so God done it" argument of the creationist crowd
Actually his argument is identical to every scientific argument ever proposed: "Here is a theory that explains the evidence, if you've got something better spit it out". The God of the Gaps argument is "we can't explain this scientifically right now, so it must be god magic". Real scientists understand that theories may not be perfect, but you use the ones that do the best job of explaining the observations.
changes that we know have very serious and negative consequences.
Actually, the changes will have minor negative consequences. The best economic predictions is that starting the changes now, would save at least trillions of dollars over the next century. Of course, if you're old and hate people, like say Rupert Murdoch, you just might be interested in putting it off as long as you can to screw over all the people you really hate, which is everyone.
We don't need to imagine what will happen if the green nuts get their will and we start putting food into our gas tanks.
Interestingly enough, bio-fuel can actually work if done correctly, however, it's been hijacked by American farmers who can get better prices for subsidized corn based bio-fuel than they can get selling the corn as food. It's not environmentalists who are pushing corn biofuel, it's farmers. The reason it doesn't seem rational to you is because you're not considering that it's in their best interest to get the most money they can for their product. It's the same issue with high-fructose corn syrup, it's heavily subsidized because the farm lobby has convinced the government to subsidize their income at everyone else's expense.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The 100% claim is essentially correct (Score:5, Insightful)
There's also extremely solid evidence that the climate has been much warmer today with ten times the amount of CO2 in the air, and not only was life just grand then. Life flourished, and was even more diverse then, then it is today. . So, we're going to base all of our information on 150-200 years roughly. With 20-30 years of 'goodish' data, with 5-15 years of not bad data, with 5 years of okay data. That the earth is warming. Not forgetting that, it's been so much warmer when humans weren't even involved.
Beh.
But that was millions of years ago and every species alive at that time is now extinct. Sure, life will flourish if the Earth's temperature increases a few degrees and CO2 increases. But the Earth won't look the same and many of the species alive now will go extinct just like they always have when there have been big climate shifts.
And it will be damn inconvenient for humans who have built their cities by the oceans and in the lowlands to take advantage of trade and the best places for agriculture.
So evidence that the Earth is heating more slowly than we thought is good news. It means we have more time to get prepared for or possibly stave off the worst of the change.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, it has been warmer, and no humans were involved. Or existed. Which is the bloody point, you fool. Humans rely on a particular ecosystem that exists within a narrow range of temperature. So, if you can survive by grazing on ferns, like the herbivorous dinosaurs, then you won't have a problem. But if you rely on things like wheat, corn, vegetables, etc, and the animals that also live in this ecosystem, then you will have a major problem.
It gets worse. Species evolve in geological time, which is a lot slo
Re:The 100% claim is essentially correct (Score:5, Funny)
Not retarded, politically motivated.
The two are often hard to distinguish, I'll grant.
Re:The 100% claim is essentially correct (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The 100% claim is essentially correct (Score:5, Informative)
Whoever modded this insightful is retarded. In no point in recorded history, or in the estimation of past CO2 levels, has the level of CO2 ever been 10 times the current amount.
Be careful who you call retarded. You're gonna feel really stupid when someone comes along and proves you wrong.
OOH! OOH! Let me!
HERE [wikipedia.org] ya go!
Did that not work? Try this one [geologist-1011.net]:
Present atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are not unprecedented in geological history. Throughout the Phanerozoic spanning the past 600 million years, carbon dioxide concentrations have been sporadically falling from well above 6000ppm (Berner, 2001). Carbon dioxide has risen before, only to be sequestered in its unstoppable decline to an all time low of 200ppm - in the midst of human history.
To put that in perspective, the current levels are around 339ppm. If you are not good at math, 6000 is more than 10 x 339.
Need more? Click HERE [lmgtfy.com]
Glad I could help.
Re: (Score:3)
He wrote
In no point in recorded history, or in the estimation of past CO2 levels, has the level of CO2 ever been 10 times the current amount.
Re: (Score:3)
Whoever modded this insightful is retarded. In no point in recorded history, or in the estimation of past CO2 levels, has the level of CO2 ever been 10 times the current amount.
Actually, it certainly has [geocraft.com].
But your were mistaken with a really awesome amount of confidence, so kudos to you!
Re: (Score:3)
ndeed, an increase in CO2 will impact the third world. Particularly very dry places. They will become more fertile. More plants will grow. More plants is the same as more food.
That's just idiocy. Have you ever worked a garden? Do you own any plants? Because you should know that there's a very vital resource that plants need that is scarce in "very dry places", and in most of those areas global warming will mean less water not more. Good luck growing your crops in the middle of the desert with no irragation.
Now, what is the purpose of a green house?
To keep plants warm enough so that they don't freeze. You seem to be suffering from a serious case of Dunning-Kruger [wikipedia.org]. Greenhouses do not use less earth and less water. H
Re:The 100% claim is essentially correct (Score:4, Insightful)
In any case, when the fate of the human race is at stake, Prevention Science is a better prescription than "healthy skepticism"
Not necessarily. "Do something!" is not the same thing as "do the right thing." We don't really yet understand what's actually going on, and it's a very complex system. If we don't understand it, we could easily screw it up even more by doing the wrong thing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're right. To avoid doing the wrong thing, we should do nothing that may affect the climate. That means we shouldn't burn any fossil fuels because they certainly have an effect on the climate.
Re:The 100% claim is essentially correct (Score:4, Insightful)
We don't really yet understand what's actually going on, and it's a very complex system. If we don't understand it, we could easily screw it up even more by doing the wrong thing.
That means we shouldn't burn any fossil fuels because they certainly have an effect on the climate.
I agree. I'm strongly in favour of going all nuclear power.
Re: (Score:3)
Nuclear power is one of the more expensive ways to produce electricity. Solar PV is already lower cost than nuclear.
Re:The 100% claim is essentially correct (Score:5, Interesting)
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=886&dat=19890326&id=dOdSAAAAIBAJ&sjid=KYEDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6879,6110878 [google.com]
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station
Inital proposed costs 2.8 Billion
Final Cost 5.8 Billion, 9.3 Billion with Financing added in
1.8 million Manhours wasted
I talked with a Senior Security employee at APS once who started out back in the day working security at the construction of that plant and he told me this story.
Due to regulations each contractor had to have the contents of their tool bag inventoried before they were allowed to begin work or leave work.
Each item brought into the plant had to be listed on a sheet with each Item getting a line.
Example 1 box of screws
1. cardboard box screws with plastic window 50 count
2. plastic window from box of screws 50 count
3. 1 screw - from box of screws 50 count
4. 1 screw from box of screws 50 count
5. 1 screw from box of screws 50 count
I could go on but you get the point
This was in the days before computers were everywhere so it had to be hand written At the end of the shift the same procedure was followed and the lists were compared and if there was any discrepency between the two and the contractors work log which recorded each item used and where it was used, a security guard had to accompany the contractor to locate the missing item and recover it.
Initally contractors were put on the clock before they entered security and taken off the clock after they exited security, so there was incentive for workers to pad their hours by bring in unnecessary boxes of screws, and ocassionally leaving an item in the facility so that they could milk overtime. eventually it was sorted out but the contractors constantly found ways to abuse the regulations to justify extra pay.
The plant at the time of the above story had no nuclear material present and the above work area that the contractors were being let into would never be exposed to nuclear material during operation (office building), but the regulation was in place purportedly to reduce the amount of potential nuclear waste by limiting and controlling the amount of material that went into the plant.
Until the regulations governing nuclear power plant construction are rationalized there will be almost no nuclear plant construction in the US and it will always be expensive and over budget. Nuclear is cheaper than current solar technologies and coal but its the regulations that drive up the cost.
Re:The 100% claim is essentially correct (Score:4, Insightful)
I sense a lack of imagination in you. Yes we'll have to change our lifestyle but that doesn't necessarily mean going back to pre-industrial living, just different than the current lifestyle.
Re: (Score:3)
[Citation]
Because I am pretty sure the numbers are no where close to your posting.
For the claim that "98% of them to agree that it's somehow caused or contributed to by human activity," try Anderegg et al. [pnas.org] Note that this is 98% of publishing climate scientist, not scientists in general.
I somehow doubt that that 98% would advocate abandoning scientific skepticism however. And I hope that most of them would be relieved ultimately to be proven wrong.
Re:Skeptical != Scientific (Score:4, Insightful)
Your paper does not claim what you claim it claims (from the freaking abstract):
Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the eld support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
the relative climate expertise and scientic prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.
I'm still on the first page! You should see how they determine "expertise" and "prominence", it's a laugh. Honestly, I've never seen rhetoric abused so much in a supposedly scientific paper.
I can read on, but this doesn't look like it's going to be a terribly credible paper.
Here's a real gem:
Between December 2008 and July 2009, we collected the number of climate-relevant publications for all 1,372 researchers from Google Scholar (search terms: “author:-lastname climate”), as well as the number of times cited for each researcher’s four top-cited articles in any eld (search term “climate” removed). [ ... ] using Google Scholar provides a more conservative estimate of expertise
To examine only researchers with demonstrated climate expertise, we imposed a 20 climate-publications minimum to be considered a climate researcher, bringing the list to 908 researchers (NCE = 817; NUE = 93). Our dataset is not comprehensive of the climate community and therefore does not infer absolute numbers or proportions of all CE versus all UE researchers.
What really stands out, however, are the numerous confounders that are NOT considered by the authors at all!
Sorry, this paper is total garbage.
Re: (Score:3)
exactly. That is like polling a political party convention and finding out 98% of them agree on their chosen stance on guns.
Nonsense! A political party is self-selecting on the basis of political opinions so the selection bias is of the same nature as the information being polled, a political opinion. The selection bias here is not on the basis of opinion, but on the basis of expertise. If you want to rescue your analogy, it's much more like polling the 1000 best marksmen (expertise) and finding out tha
Re:Skeptical != Scientific (Score:4, Funny)
CITE YOUR GODDAM SOURCES... You. You have to be the first.
[Citation Needed]
Re:Skeptical != Scientific (Score:5, Funny)
Well, the numbers I have can be found here [slashdot.org]
84% support the earth is warming
74% support man influenced warming
67% warming due to man made CO2
14% that the earth is in fact cooling.
These are in complete agreement with this expert as well [slashdot.org].
Re:Skeptical != Scientific (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of the "climate reporting" is completely retarded. High and low pressures alternate, air is always flowing from high to low. Like now Eastern Europe has been very cold, well at Svalbard they've had record warmth because the high pressure has pushed low pressures with warm, moist air north. These lead to huge local year-to-year variations with mild and cold winters. And every mild season people go "ooh, must be global warming" and every cold season people go "ooh, global warming is a hoax" and the media isn't helping with their sensationalism. To say if it was really a global effect you need lots of data and would probably end up in a boring conclusion like "Average world temperature rose by 0.08C this year".
What's that, zero point zero something degrees you say? 8C in 100 years would actually be extremely much, but it sounds very little, very boring. So 99% of it is sensationalist hype from local extremes, because if you look at a huge mass of data and cherry pick results you'll always find some that are way outside the normal. That's at least what I consider healthy skepticism, in fact I'd apply it to most things found in mainstream media. Extrapolating from the fields where I know they butcher the truth, I don't expect the others to fare any better. I bet that for example doctors are tearing their hair out over the medical reporting, where almost any result is hyped like a major breakthrough or a cure being right around the corner to get readers.
Re:Skeptical != Scientific (Score:5, Insightful)
You couldn't be more incorrect. Being skeptical means to be not easily convinced. To not take things at face value and to demand solid evidence for extraordinary claims.
It does NOT mean "disbelieving things by default."
Re: (Score:3)
What we actually need in this case is demand for verification, not skepticism per se.
If a guy comes to you and says, "oh by the way, I have this here research paper, where I've found out that OMG HIMALAYAS ARE MELTING!! WE WILL ALL DIE!!". The correct course of action is to ask him to submit said paper for peer review, and then see if anybody else can reproduce that observation. Once you get sufficient verification, you start treating it as an objective fact by default, unless future evidence proves you wro
Be Skeptical of the Guardian (Score:3)
Re:Skeptical != Scientific (Score:5, Insightful)
Number 2, I guess.
I was brainwashed into thinking that the scientific method leads to fallible results, which may be disproved by later tests.
I must be a rube for thinking that we should make decisions based on the best available theories of the time, with the acceptance that policies may need to change later.
How dumb of me to think that temperature changes might be a temporary thing, but it probably wouldn't hurt to cut pollution, anyway.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It stops being skepticism and gets into denialism when the denier starts quoting the same old discredited arguments over and over again.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, hairyfeet, but he's use denialism [wikipedia.org] correctly. When you choose to believe discredited arguments because you don't want the alternative to be true, you're living in denial.
The truth is that there's 14 different lines of evidence that indicate that climate change is occurring and 12 different lines of evidence that indicates that it's humans doing it. It's going to be extremely difficult for anyone to disprove all of those different lines of evidence. Too many people seize on one issue with one line o
Re: (Score:3)
It stops being skepticism and gets into denialism when the denier starts quoting the same old discredited arguments over and over again.
Just show them the hockey stick graph - that'll shut 'em up!
Re:Maintaining a balanced position (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree....
In my childhood, it was always sunny, seldom a rainy day, it was never too hot, never too cold.
Now, it's gets bloody cold, lots of snow, extremely humid, all in just 20 years time.
Maybe I shouldn't have moved from San Diego to the northeast. *ponder*
Popcorn anyone? (Score:5, Funny)
Zealots...to your respective corners!
In this corner, we have Chicken Little, the frothing-at-the-mouth environmentalist who thinks the world is about to explode and every cute polar cub in going to drown if we don't do something RIGHT NOW! NOW! NOW! NOW!
And in this corner, we have Jesus H. Capitalist, the denier who thinks that pumping shit-tons of crap into the atmosphere and abolishing the EPA are good things because BP and Chevron say it's okay and Jesus says "Vote Republican!"
Gentlemen, when the bell sounds...begin your crazed hyperbole! Remember, bonus points are given for the most convoluted Nazi analogy.
Ding, ding.
Re: (Score:2)
I want a third corner for gun-toting-gay-atheist-libertarians who think that abolishing the EPA is a good thing, aren't worried about a trace gas in the atmosphere, don't want prayer in school, and just want to find and marry Mr. Right :)
Re: (Score:2)
I, for one, welcome our new Hispanic entrepreneurial overloads and their shit-ton pumping lawnmowers.
It's obvious... (Score:5, Funny)
...Big Oil must've airlifted extra snow up there when nobody was looking! :)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not believing it until I hear from the boots on the ground that the ice and snow is legit, and not that Styrofoam and glitter they use in Hollywood.
Entirely normal during climate change. (Score:3, Interesting)
CLIMATE change means, climates will change locally, and in micro-climate level.
global warming means, the AVERAGE world temperature will rise. 2 degrees celsius rise in a temperature, wouldnt be felt in your locale if happened. you wouldnt notice it.
but, if AVERAGE world temperature rises by 2 degrees celsius, this means that to effect that AVERAGE rise, innumerable local and micro-climates around the world will change, in WHATEVER fashion.
hence, the CLIMATE CHANGE term. a more correct term that describes the EFFECT that the CAUSE, global warming, has.
some locales may not see ANY change. some locales may get freaking hot. some locales may get cold. some locales may become rainforests. some locales can go humid, some go dry. some become exceedingly windy. ANYthing goes.
so, some ice melting around the world, some staying, is perfectly normal.
climate change is more destructive, because it is impossible to predict what will change and how.
Re:Entirely normal during climate change. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
All of that can happen when global average temperature stays the same.
All of that can happen when global average temperature *falls*.
All of that can happen when global average temperature *rises*.
And actually, not only *can* it happen in all three cases, it *does* happen in all three cases!
Well, now the "refine theory" part of science (Score:4, Informative)
Just remember that 10 years ago "skeptics"(how exactly they define that term, I don't know) were pointing to how little ice was being lost from Antarctica in the preceding 5 years as indisputable evidence of a hoax.
As evidence that people believed this: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=antarctica+gaining+ice&source=newssearch&cd=1&ved=0CDMQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.csmonitor.com%2F2002%2F0118%2Fp02s01-usgn.html&ei=Yko0T6zmIYrXtgegk4mwAg&usg=AFQjCNHtA3NtryZuUSi1k3FLEueaP9NWfg [google.com]
Whoops, right?
Extrapolating from 0.075% of all glaciers to 100% (Score:3, Insightful)
The science is settled? No. The science is shoddy.
Controversy aside (Score:4, Insightful)
Controversy over AGW aside, this means nothing. The world can warm while some regions gain, lose, or maintain ice. It's GLOBAL climate change so what matters is the GLOBAL ice pack.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But this is AMERICA, dammit, and we don't care about ice packs on the other side of the world. What about OUR ice? That's what we should be concerned about! Are we going to be able to ski in Colorado next year or not? Somebody answer! If the answer is yes then I am going to rip the catalytic converter off my SUV tomorrow to cash in the Palladium value.
(and yes, I was trying to be over-dramatically satirical).
And the seas are not rising (Score:5, Informative)
In related news from last year, global sea levels dropped 6mm over 2010 [physorg.com].
DId you read tha article (Score:5, Informative)
and understand why? HINT, it's not because of cooling or creating more ice.
It's because of more rain fall over land.
Re: (Score:3)
was a mass study not an actual ice study. (Score:4, Interesting)
The new study used a pair of satellites, called Grace, which measure tiny changes in the Earth's gravitational pull. When ice is lost, the gravitational pull weakens and is detected by the orbiting spacecraft.
Bristol University glaciologist Prof Jonathan Bamber, who was not part of the research team, said: "The very unexpected result was the negligible mass loss from high mountain Asia, which is not significantly different from zero."
--
So what they were measuring was mass loss. Not exactly ice loss.
But in general ice/water moves a lot faster than rock. Still rock ways more than water. So they assumed all changes or not were ice/water.
What if the moutains got a bit taller as the ice was removed? That would seem to balance out the loss of ice.
Hmm, "The Himalayas continue to rise more than 1 cm a year "
I sure hope they at least subtract out that known growth rate. 1cm of rock over the entire mountain range is a lot of mass.
Anyone have the actual article did they subtrace mass increases due to mountain growth? And how did they calculate mountain growth. These things can go from positive to negative really quickly with a small change fudge factors like this.
Isostacy (Score:5, Informative)
You might have nailed it. If you remove the mass from the top of the Himalayas in the form of water, the reduced weight will cause the mountains to rebound upward from the pressure from underneath.
Effectively, missing water mass is replaced by mineral mass, in what might be an almost perfect balance.
The term for this is isostacy, there's a wikipedia article on it.
--PM
Re: (Score:3)
Reading comprehension fail.
The Himalayan mountains are growing in size every year. Mass lost due to ice melting means less weight on the mountains, which means the mountains can grow faster. Thus, the mass lost from ice melting is replaced by mass from continental shelves colliding together.
You could have looked this up pretty easily.
Oh, you're an AC. Now I understand.
Re: (Score:3)
INtersting note (Score:3, Insightful)
'Normal' cycles would indicate that they should be increasing; the fact that they remain 0 is still a concern.
Skepticism (Score:5, Insightful)
>who also warns that 8 years simply isn't enough time to draw conclusions
Right, 8 years isn't long enough to draw conclusions when the 8 years of evidence doesn't point to the conclusion you want it to.
But if it points to the conclusion you want, then it's all the proof you need.
(Sorry... I think there are MANY forces at work that shape our climate, and people are pretty arrogant to think they understand all of them.)
As someone who thinks GW is real (Score:5, Insightful)
I am glad that seemingly hard facts are being presented.
While I still think the overwhelming evidence supports the hypothesis that 1) GW is occurring and 2) man is responsible, at least this is better than the ranting and raving that I've come to expect from skeptics.
Of course my thinking is sustained by much more complete data sets of a GLOBAL perspective provided by climatologists. There was a recent animation produced by NASA recently that showed a map of worldwide temperature readings for the past 150 years. (I submitted it to slashdot, for some reason it was rejected). If the skeptics can continue to produce data that shows the GW is not happening I'm open to changing my thinking. But again, from what I've been following in the literature, there hasn't been much supporting their point of view.
Look, I'm not ideologically opposed to fossil fuels per say; with the vastly increased amounts of natural gas in the U.S. I'm happy to use a fuel that doesn't directly fund people who hate us. However I'm also not one to overlook an inconvenient truth.
Re:As someone who thinks GW is real (Score:5, Interesting)
You can have #1 without #2.
On top of that, the implied #3 (GW is a bad thing) is also disputable.
So, say we agree on the actual temperature *data* observed and stipulate to #1. What data would convince you that #2, or #3 aren't true?
Re: (Score:3)
On top of that, the implied #3 (GW is a bad thing) is also disputable.
The recent /. post on the Little Ice Age [slashdot.org] pointed out that all the effects of the Little Ice Age were caused by an average temperature drop of 1 degree Centigrade. Now with Global Warming we're talking about greater than 1 degree C of temperature rise. Why would you expect the effects from temperature rise to be any less drastic than they were with the drop?
Re:As someone who thinks GW is real (Score:5, Interesting)
Yep. That's science, doing exactly what the deniers claim it doesn't do, and that's the reason why those who value knowledge over ideology favor the scientists over the deniers.
I've given up worrying about the climate change in itself. The denialists have won, and will win, until it's far too late (as it may already be). I'd kind of like to see science win out over ignorance, and I think science still has a slight edge. It maintains that edge by being the ones who take into account all of the facts to reach true conclusions, and altering their understanding when new facts come to light to keep their conclusions in line with the best understanding.
As a way to understand the world, it's more effective than ideology. As a way to make things happen, it's getting trounced, at least in this area. Perhaps I should care about the latter more than the former, but having lost there, I take what solace I can in at least trying to understand the world. Even if it means that some day the retards get to score extra points.
Re:As someone who thinks GW is real (Score:5, Interesting)
You know... Calling someone "deniers" is quite simply not science at all- it's just another form of religion when you start down that path.
Not really (Score:3, Informative)
Seems to me (Score:2, Interesting)
Even AGW people admit that water is the REAL problem, and that CO2 is just a trigger for increases in that heat-storing gas. But for some reason they seem to chafe at the idea of using condensers and other methods to remove the water from the air. For some reason the
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Seems to me this points toward something other than CO2 causing the warming.
And you would be wrong. It helps if you read the research on the subject. Also, the IPCC report has some very good layman explanations of the phenomena involved with planetary warming.
Something like, I don't know, water vapor, of which there is little in the Asian highlands, but plenty around the much lower areas where the glaciers are melting.
Actually, it is far more likely a result of GHGs in the lower troposphere preventing thermal radiation from escaping, which is already a noted result in stratospheric cooling.
Even AGW people admit that water is the REAL problem, and that CO2 is just a trigger for increases in that heat-storing gas.
Water vapor isn't a problem. It is a result of higher temperatures induced by higher concentrations of GHGs. You have your feedbacks a little backward.
But for some reason they seem to chafe at the idea of using condensers and other methods to remove the water from the air.
I'
How could this be? (Score:5, Funny)
Shouldn't the vast global environmentalist "AGW" conspiracy have prevented these scientists from publishing their results? Isn't climate science controlled by a crowd that ensures their future prosperity by preventing dissenting opinions? How could this be?!
Still stunned... (Score:3)
Shouldn't the vast global environmentalist "AGW" conspiracy have prevented these scientists from publishing their results? Isn't climate science controlled by a crowd that ensures their future prosperity by preventing dissenting opinions? How could this be?!
They are probably still stunned by the release of the Climategate 2.0 emails.
Climategate 2.0 - A new batch of leaked emails again shows some leading scientists trying to smear opponents. - NOVEMBER 28, 2011 [wsj.com]
Are the facts the facts? (Score:2)
I'm assuming we're going to find the same kind of issue with the data that we did with polar snow fall. Yeah, it was higher at the poles because there was more snow melt and more humidity, but the overall there was a loss of snow.
freezing point depression of solution (Score:3, Interesting)
Could it be because they haven't received a sufficient level of pollution, or the ice and snow are too cold to dissolve and allow the pollutants to dissolve in water? Adding solute to solvent depresses the freezing point. Just shortly (a year or two) after we started getting news about noticeable and unavoidable amounts of pollutants showing up in the cubic meters of air tested atop the Swiss Alps, we started getting news about the imminent collapse of the Alps' mostly glacial makeup. But that's because the alps, just warm enough for the glacier ice to melt just enough on the surface to admit pollutants, ended up with a depressed freezing point. On the other hand, I don't know about the quality of air on the Himalayas, but it could be possible that the ice never comes below freezing and so even if there were pollutants settling on the snow, they wouldn't make it into solution.
Always helpful to RTFA before blathering... (Score:5, Interesting)
Note that this is not a reply to any particular prior comment...
From TFA:
That is exactly what one would expect for some degree of overall warming. The highest parts of the Himalayas are still high and cold enough to freeze out every bit of moisture in the air that brings them snow, but that air (mostly monsoon flow from the south) is generally moister because it and the ocean it has passed are significantly warmer than in the past. The result is low glaciers melting back from the warm air and rain instead of snow and higher protoglacial snowpack growing faster than the existing glacier paths can move out.
This is very basic weather science: more snow in routinely cold places does not mean they are getting colder, it means they are getting more injections of warm humid air. Of course that's only true as long as the cold predominates, because eventually it all turns to rain. I've watched this happen in Michigan, where we've gone from record snowfall years (but not record cold) to unusually warm and soaked-through winters.
You're not convincing anyone (Score:3)
It doesn't matter what studies you publish regarding climate change, the pro-AGW people will say that it either supports their claims or that the data in the study isn't enough to draw substantive conclusions from. Meanwhile, the anti-AGW folks will say that either the data in the study isn't enough to draw substantive conclusions from or that it supports their claims.
Meanwhile, the rest of us get to sit around trying to work out if a) mankind's effect on the environment is a significant enough contributor to the current climate trend that anything we can reasonably change is going to make any difference and b) if there's any chance in hell that you can get a *room* of random people to agree to noticeably reduce their energy consumption, let alone an entire planet.
Re:You're not convincing anyone (Score:4, Insightful)
You know, I think that if everyone who believes AGW is a serious danger got together and used their political donations to instead fund a private foundation to support technological research to make "green" advancements more cost effective, and then shop those to private business, there would be more than enough money get the job taken care of, and without the political BS.
Some people just don't like the government telling them what to do. And other people are pretty annoyed with being forced to do something that one billion Chinese can't be bothered with. And yes, I know that they are working on green energy too, but really, if people think that's really making up for the sheer ecological disaster that China is, they have never been to China.
Point is, those who are trying to get the government to stop AGW are just as obstinate and counterproductive in their own way as the people who simply ignore or deny AGW. Just get as many people on your side as possible, collect the money from them, and do the PR and product development yourselves.
Denier language from global warming enthusiasts... (Score:5, Interesting)
The funniest quote was from the University of Colorado Professor Wahr who states: ""It is awfully dangerous to take an eight-year record and predict even the next eight years, let alone the next century," he said." That's what us deniers say! Maybe we are reaching a 'consensus.' He prefaces his comments by saying: "Our results and those of everyone else show we are losing a huge amount of water into the oceans every year, people should be just as worried about the melting of the world's ice as they were before." I can assure Professor Wahr that denier concern levels about the melting of the world's ice is unchanged from before the release of the study. Most importantly for Prof. Wahr, 'everyone else' is still solidly behind the 'we are losing huge amounts of ice' school of thought in spite of the pesky Himalaya study.
Pumpkin picked reporting in Nature (Score:3)
If you want to determine the content of any system, you must account for both everything entering it as well as all the stuff leaving it. If you count 500 people leaving the exit of a building, you should not conclude that there are now 500 more people outside the building - because you didn't count the number of people going in.
That's not cherry picking, that's pumpkin picking.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, because the record is longer than 8 years.
Idiot.