Mountain Moisture Melting 308
felis_panthera writes "Yahoo! News has a Full Coverage story on how global warming is causing the ice cap atop Mt. Kilimanjaro to melt. It goes on to say that it has shrunk by 80% in the last century, and will probably be completely gone in another two decades. The ice cap is believed to have formed some eleven millenia ago. Some African rivers have already seen a decrease in volume, and it is feared that the loss of the ice cap will also cause a drop off in tourism."
Global Warming isn't real! (Score:5, Funny)
This message paid for by Exxon-Mobile
Re:Global Warming isn't real! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Global Warming isn't real! (Score:2, Funny)
I mean, I just sit here at my computer and have become an armchair climate specialist.
Plus, I won't be alive if it is a threat so what do I care, right?
Re:Global Warming isn't real! (Score:2)
Er, um, I wasn't disagreeing with you. Posting in response to a comment doesn't necessarily mean disagreement.
Re:Global Warming isn't real! (Score:3, Insightful)
The global warming skeptics really do chose some bad company for themselves.
I told you... (Score:2, Funny)
Nothing to do with humans munging global warming. BTW, that article on the Sun getting ready to heave said we have 6 years left.
global warming is a myth (Score:2)
Did you ever see a giant clam show remorse over eating too much plankton? Right....
We're far from being a major force in the Universe. We're too new....
Re:global warming is a myth (Score:2)
Oh... that is why we are doing so much to avoid doing such damage.
> Did you ever see a giant clam show remorse over eating too much plankton? Right....
Remorse requires ethics.
The giant clam lacks the prerequisite not beeing sentient.
Not to mention that the giant clam doesn't eat too much plankton. (A single one may do so, but not the whole species). That is evolution at work.
Every species, which did not achieved an equlibrium with its surrounding ecosystem became distinct.
> We're far from being a major force in the Universe. We're too new....
How does this correlate? Why does one need to be a major force in the universe to affect the earth?
Do we need to be old to be a major force?
We may be dwarved by other scales, but for those scales that we do care about, we have quite an impact.
Tourism!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Tourism!? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Tourism!? (Score:5, Interesting)
*Looks out the window at Mt. Meru to see if there is ice on top*
Nope, not today, but there would be if it had rained.
Most of the tourist $$$ are spent on safaris to Serengeti, Ngorogoro, etc. anyway. Kili is just a sideshow.
well if it saves us from disaster (Score:2)
Hell of a lot of things boil down to money, in the end (don't need to tell this to a /. crowd who are predominantly in favour of USA style economies, and ahem, let's not mention which evil dictators we're at war with, and which are our 'best friends'). If it saves us from ecological disaster, then heck, I am happy. Wrong motives maybe but at least then there will be a half-habitable planet left for our kids.
Re:Tourism!? (Score:2, Funny)
Who knows? (Score:4, Interesting)
Could there be other factors to account for such a profound localized decrease (80%??). The polar icecaps certainly don't look 80% smaller to me...
Could it have something to do with more local climatalogical factors? Increased industrialization in Africa? Loss of vegetation on that continent?
Seems like an awfully high decline, that hasn't to my knowledge been demonstrated in other places in the world.
Sorry... too skeptical to buy this one.
Re:Who knows? (Score:5, Interesting)
The temperature near the Kilamanjaro icecap is much closer to melting than the temperature at the poles, especially in the summer. A fixed temperature increase would obviously show there first.
Unique ecosystem (Score:5, Interesting)
Umm
Remember that the glaciers on Kilimanjaro are pretty unique - it's slap on the equator (so there's no winter/summer to allow the glaciers to grow and shrink), it's peak is 6km above sea level, where the atmospheric pressure is ~50% of sea level (how does that effect the melting point?), and the glaciers are a side effect of what happened about 10000 years ago.
Because it's a single (well, ok, actually a triple) peak, not in a mountain range, there aren't going to be any particular wierd weather patterns around it, so it's probably quite a good gauge of what's happening 6000m above us. How changes in the atmosphere up there effect us down here is, of course, the subject of heated (sorry) debate.
I actually climbed up in 1996 and was quite surprised that i didn't come across any snow at all - but you could walk right up to the base of bits of the glaciers. Still bloody cold though - especially as everyone climbs up the last bit in the night (to see dawn break from the top).
Re:Unique ecosystem (Score:2)
I'm not certain that this guy is entirely stupid. I think it might simply be a case of his mistaking discussion about the mountain's ice pack with the ice packs on the planet's poles, which I don't believe have shrunk 80% in the last century, hence his skepticism.
Otherwise, your post was quite informative. I just don't have any mod-points today to say so. (Hence this post).
Thanks.
-Fantastic Lad
HTML (Score:2)
Normal HTML tags. The ones you may use are listed below the submit/preview buttons when you're writing your post. Most are on the format <XX> where XX is a combination of letters describing what you want. E.g. <b>bold</b> makes the text bold.
Have a look at some HTML Tutorial [w3.org] or check out w3's [w3.org] HTML pages [w3.org].
Re:Tough ecosystem (Score:5, Insightful)
>Having studied the bio sciences...
Then you most certainly came across differential equations? (Hunter/Gatherer comes to mind)
> (which the ocean should buffer quite nicely, considering it covers 75% of the earth's surface)
The problem is, that blue algea and corals are highly suspectible to changes in temperature.
(Hint: they don't thrive on rising temperature)
> I'm not certain global warming has been proven to the bulk of the scientific community's satisfaction.
The majority of climatologists consider human induced global warming a fact (that's a Saddam Hussein election-like majority, not a more than 50% majority)
The amount of increase and influence is debated about.
>[...] you cannot extrapolate from a single mountain [...] though I'm sure global warming proponents will try.
Every time, I've heard a climatologist speaking about such a phenomenom (polar glaciers, Alpen glaciers, El Niño, large storms, floodings and droughts) , he says almost the same, something along the line: "It's a single incident, and, standing alone, it proves nothing. And saying, this is a prove for global warming is nonesense. But as a part of a larger statistic, it leads us to the consequence, that there is a global warming.
> [...] !EARTHFIRST!" communique about the plant's imminent demise... feh. Earth is tougher than we are [...]
Those people aren't as altruistic as you may think. They are fearing the planet's demise, but it's a demise from our perspective.
How will the planet react towards a sudden climatic change? Well, like it ever reacted, a "reboot". Will this make life extinct, most certainly not. But what about us humans?
The more complicated a system, the more likey it will fail. And human society is fairly complicated.
How many people you know are actually working for the survival of the human-kind? Not directly or indirectly for an advancement of society, but only for actual survival?
Certainly, fairly few.
We've achieved and rely on a highly efficient system, which provides us with all the neccessities for survival and allows us to maintain us a lot of "unnecessary" things, in other words a culture.
We cannot maintain such efficiency under a fast changing climate. (The marches of Sibiria won't become fertile, just because it becomes warmer. Still the deserts become larger)
Even in the current situation the global society isn't as stable as one liked it to be.
The G7 are building walls to protect their wealth from the poorer nations. In case of the US, you can even take it literally (Mexican border).
Will those walls previal in case of an even increased discrepancy between the wealthy and the poor?
Re:Tough ecosystem (Score:2)
The amount of increase and influence is debated about.
And for a long time, the majority of geologists considered contental drift to be a crackpot theory. And the majority of physicists considered Newtonian physics to be the final answer.
Science is not a matter of votes. Neither is it well served by naive analyses of short term data in what is a very long term process.
Actually, the majority of climatologists consider global warming a fact. They do not agree on whether it is human induced. They do agree that CO2 has increased, and that the most simplistic physics would predict warming as a result. They have models that predict warming, and yet they have almost no decent models of ocean behavior, which is far more important than the atmosphere in determining climate.
Also keep in mind that the majority of reporters (including the moderators of Slashdot) are predisposed towards stories that favor man-caused global warming. And that the majority of funding in the climatological area goes to those who investigate global warming - with bias towards those whose papers favor the hypothesis. I know researchers in the field who, under the Clinton administration in the US, were afraid to have their actual anti-anthropogenic views attributed to them because they would lose funding!
The earth started warming in the 17th century, long before any significant CO2 increase. The current warming may be anthropogenic. It also may not. It is just as likely that anthropogenic warming is preventing a damaging cooling.
I get really tired of almost every story published about nature mentioning a possible connection to global warming!
Where are the stories about glacial growth? Some glaciers are increasing, not decreasing, but that doesn't seem to ever make the press, or Slashdot.
Skeptical? (Score:2)
Rejecting evidence that doesn't fit with your beliefs is not smart (like Bayes is smart). What do you do for an encore? Argue for creationism?
No, still not skeptical enough. (Score:2)
Maybe you honestly misinterpreted my rejection of your rejection. Let me spell it out for you: asking questions you assume you know the answer to is not an argument and does not illuminate the topic. It just makes you sound like an overly-dramatic lawyer. You ask what are supposed to be important questions, but can't be bothered to come out and answer them yourself. If you know something your reader should know, tell them. Unless, of course, you are speaking only to people who already share your point of view.
Also, I don't reject Creationism because of my beliefs, spiritual or otherwise. I reject Creationism because it is untestable and often falls into emotional arguments and character assassination rather than putting forward ideas that stand for themselves.
Re:Who knows? (Score:2)
So what if I told you that the town I live in set 3 record lows this year. That it snowed here already. That it was colder this year then on average. (these are all true by the way, Fargo, ND) I keep finding ways to push my agenda of global cooling, every story I can find that talks about a record low, early snow, blizzards, etc. I print in my paper or on my website and I never print any stories about warmer then usual events, after a while my readers start to believe it. Then I don't have to push my agenda anymore because every story you here of cold weather somewhere you think. Ohh it's just more proof of global cooling! Does this make sense to anyone else? I think this is what the media is doing, pushing global warming for a political agenda.
It's like the sensationalist new story that never went away. The kidnappings of little rich white girls went away (they wouldn't cover any others), the shark attacks went away. Gary Condit went away. School shootings went away. Mad cow disease went away, Little Ellian went away. Oj went away. Ohh, and we are all gonna die from global warming, the sky is falling, the sky is falling. That one always seems to come back to life.
Re:Who knows? (Score:3, Insightful)
If this were an accurate description of how climatologists and other scientists interested in global climate change work, sure.
But of course it's not at all how scientists work. If you mistrust the press, dig into the scientists. Read up on what the National Academy of Science has to say about it, for instance.
Human Uraemia! (Score:5, Interesting)
in danger of being killed by its own excretion, of dying from an illness closely analogous to uraemia. Humanity will be forced to invent some sort of planetary kidney - or it will die from its own waste products."
The statement he made looks strikingly true today...Today Kilimanjaro. Tomorrow???
Re:Human Uraemia! (Score:2)
And I like to call this kidney "outer space."
Let's immediately start shooting our garbage towards that huge blackhole at the center of our galaxy... that "garbage disposal in the sky," if you will.
Dialysis (Score:5, Interesting)
"Human Culture"? Yes, some of them will change. Some will die off or mutate, some will grow or shrink, some new ones will from. They do that from time to time - often on a scale of hundreds of years or less.
Human Beings, and extinction? Hardly. (Though the current enormous population is supported by farm, transport, and food preservation technologies - so a loss of this tech or an increase in its price, through economic collapse or regulation, means a significant die-off.)
Humans started out as a handfull of hunter-gatherers, before or during the last ice age. They expanded to inhabit essentially every bit of land area and floating ice except Antarctica BEFORE they developed industrial civilization and the scientific method. (Name another animal - other than human parasites - that managed that.)
Plains, deserts, steppes, mountains, ice caps... I doubt humanity could be wiped out by any climatic change that didn't boil or freeze ALL the water or eliminate all oxygen from the air.
The planet finally coming the rest of the way out of the last Ice Age - with the temperate zones shifting a couple hundred miles further from the equator and steaming jungles expanding beyond Brazil and central Africa - doesn't even qualify. (Heck: For raw biomass, suitably modified crops, or even CURRENT crops, it's probably a significant improvement.) And some of us would count the loss of the outer edge of certain seacoast cities to be a bonus. B-) Going back into a full Ice Age is more of a problem - though the greening of the equatorial deserts might make up for the loss of some more poleward land to glaciers.
Of course, if temperature shifts actually become a problem we can fix them directly, without screwing around with the CO2 level of the atmosphere. Just orbit a few hundred square miles of aluminized mylar, suitably located and oriented to provide a bit of shade if things are getting too hot, a bit of extra sunlight if they're getting too cold. Or whatever hack the rocket scientists come up with that's cheaper.
You want a robust space program anyhow - so you have something to spot and deflect the next incoming asteroid or comet fragment. Such an impact turning the whole planet into a broiler-oven for a day or so is the REAL threat of "global warming". THAT would once again reduce the ecosystem to plants with very robust seeds and resistance to PH variatioins and mouse-sized animals that happened to be underground at the time. (And maybe a few humans who had hung out in underground sites that didn't collapse and squirreled away a few years of supplies to last until they could grow something to eat.)
But I doubt temperature shifts (let alone the handfull of degrees that has the lefties drooling for more power and the media paniced) will be a problem for food production at all. Most of the food production of the world is now essentially an industrial operation, while the rest benefits from the tech. A few degrees of temperature change just means you change which crops - or which strains of a particular crop - you grow in a particular field. Shifts in weather patterns ditto, maybe with a change in irrigation or include the crops' water usage in the selection criteria, a few marginal plots going out of production, and new land becoming able to support crops.
Humanity will be forced to invent some sort of planetary kidney - or it will die from its own waste products."
Now that's true. But we've been doing EXACTLY THAT for quite a while now. When any given type of pollution becomes enough of a problem to bother with, we FIX it. Baby Boomers are old enough to remember Los Angeles smog before auto industry folk (including me) fixed up the engines. But that's NOTHING compared to, say, the killer fogs of London (driven by high-sulfur heating coal). Or just the indoor air of any human habitation in a cold climate before gas heat. And just think a moment about the streets of a city served only by horse- and ox-drawn vehicles. Talk about pollution...
Tech sometimes creates a new sort, or new amount, of pollution - "excretion" in Lorenz's vocabulary. But once it becomes a problem, more tech generally solves it (sometimes after quite a few years of griping by the people for whom it is a problem.)
The climate before the industrial revolution (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if the world is 'warming up', the fact is that it's done this in the past and it will do it again in the future. I'm personally more concerned about a switch in the earth's magnetic poles, that's really going to upset my monitors!
However, this also is no reason to be complacent about pumping CO2 (and other such byproducts) into the atmosphere without care. We should still continue to make efforts to reduce our consumption of the resources on this planet.
Re:The climate before the industrial revolution (Score:4, Insightful)
it would do us well to remember that when it's done this in the past, such mild effects took place as species extinctions... but even a series of famines will be bad enough.
So yes, it has happened in the past, and it was so devastating that you should be duly scared now
Re:The climate before the industrial revolution (Score:2)
Okay, what species went extinct during the medieval warm period? Or how about 4000 BC?
Both periods saw warmer periods than today.
I think its obvious... (Score:5, Funny)
Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered Ice community when last month Yahoo News confirmed that Ice accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all states of water. Coming on the heels of the latest Yahoo News story which plainly states that Ice has lost more mountains, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Ice is collapsing in complete disarray, as further exemplified by failing dead last in the recent "will it live through fire" test.
Re:I think its obvious... (Score:2)
Hurry up... (Score:5, Funny)
Slashdot proves globalwarming! (Score:3, Insightful)
After damage is done (or not done) we can evaluate what was supposed to be done. That has happened with PCB, DDT, CRC and other fine chemichals in past. Why not with CO2.
Beleive in global warming or not, I still think it would be better to reduce usage of something that is widely suspected to be the cause of global warming. Once this theory is proven wrong feel free to drive with SUVs as much as you like.
Thank you.
Re:Slashdot proves globalwarming! (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the problem with panic now, think later... it can cause FAR more harm. Case in point, DDT.
DDT single handedly killed maleria in the areas where it was used, due to it's very effective control of mosquitos. Thousands of lives saved. Then the panic kicked in.
First, the panic was that it was toxic, and killing people. Turns out not to be true at all.
Second panic was that it was destroying the eggs of birds in the areas that it was used. This turned out to be valid. Unfortunately not as valid as the reaction... banning it entirely.
What could have happened was using it in a far more targetted manner, rather than dumping it in large quantities without further consideration. Nope, had to pass laws, panic now, think later.
It's later, and maleria related deaths are on the rise again. Birds are fine though.
I honestly don't understand one thing. Why is it that in almost any other human endeavor problem solving involves actually figuring out what the problem truly is before taking corrective action. When it comes to how we get along with the environment around us we're all too easily lulled into the notion that problem definition can be waved for the greater good.
Re:Slashdot proves globalwarming! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Slashdot proves globalwarming! (Score:5, Informative)
On the other hand, people was going somewhat overboard in their enthusiasm of spraying with DDT, and the long time for natural decomposition meant it would accumulate through the food chain. One of the effects spotted was weaker eggs in birds of prey, especially those eating fish, such as in the antarctic region. As usual, it was the continued increased exposure that worried scientists, not the short-term effects (and yes, we live on top of the food-chain too).
Oblinks:
So, it seems reasonable that we could continue to use some DDT, but because of the worrying long-term effects, it shouldn't be used as freely as in the 40's and 50's. The fact that we are still debating it's effects after 60 years shows us that Malaria/DDT is not an easy issue. As an added complication comes the economic divide between north and south, if it was us living in malaria-infected areas, we would probably have kept spraying...
Re:Slashdot proves globalwarming! (Score:2)
On this single point you are wrong.
When you deploy any chemical to "control" mosquitos you just kill the weak ones leaving ones which will never die. It's called natural selection.
Two things fight malaria, and they are quinine and sickle-cell.
Re:Slashdot proves globalwarming! (Score:3, Insightful)
Proper drainage and irragation are even more effective than these. Witness the malaria deaths (or specifically, the lack of them) in the US, vs. 100 years ago.
Re:Slashdot proves globalwarming! (Score:2, Funny)
A chemist has poisoned my brain
The cause of his sorrow
was para-dichloro-
diphenyl-trichloroethane
Re:Slashdot proves globalwarming! (Score:2)
DDT is banned for use in the US, but its manufacture is not banned and DDT is m anufactured here and exported for use overseas.
DDT is still used on a spot basis in Africa and other areas.
Re:Slashdot proves globalwarming! (Score:2)
The same also goes for TCE and a number of other compounds that the scarios and their friends in the EPA try to keep at microscopic levels.
ANd I feel free to drive my large (but suprisingly fuel efficient) SUv as much as I want. In fact, it gives me great pleasure to do so, since so many idiots think it is wrong.
Still underestimated (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the global warming effect is still underestimated. Tourism will be our (or our children) least problem.
There is no question of "if" this will be happening but only "when". We may still affect duration and intensity, but I have only little hope.
Yours, Martin
Re:Still underestimated (Score:5, Interesting)
Climate didn't cause the roman empire to collapse although it was a major contributing factor and a catalyst. You could argue that had those same climate changes occured at, oh, 200 A.D. the empire would've probably been fine. You bring up a good point though, only the strongest of empires/countries can survive climate change of this magnitude. The Han dynasty in China, the Kush kingdom in Africa, and the Parthian Empire all collapsed at roughly the same time as the Western roman empire did.
These changes just came at the wrong time for the Roman Empire and might come at the wrong time for us. It was years of waste and corruption, an increasingly non-roman army, weaker government,loss of food supply, inability to maintain it's borders - or indefensible borders if you prefer, and many, many other factors. A rapid debate will ensue among most historians if you mention the collapse of the Roman Empire. Climate change just seemed to be the catalyst for the final collapse - as it might be the catalyst for the collapse of western civilization (Don't call me paranoid, read the damm paper below)
For more I wrote a term paper on this very subject a year or two ago: Climate Change and the Collapse of Empires (Open Office Doc) [rr.com]. Looks at the parthian empire, kush dynasty, and Han regime in china as well which collapsed around the same time. Not exactly the best paper I have written but it does give a good background.
And, Where There Is Global Warming... (Score:3, Funny)
The reason I ask is because i found out two days ago that I have gained 4 pounds since the beginning of the semester -- thanks to a core requirment/class... now, my weight is generally a fairly stable thing in my mind, and i wouldn't have even noticed... back on the farm at home, i'm sure that i will probabbly loose those pounds...
now, if you can see the relation, good, if not, too bad
seems to me that if ice wants to melt after a few million years of being frozen, all the more power to it. I wish the ice in my fridge would stay frozen for that long when i'm sipping my frosted mug of root beer......
Point of View is Everything, and Period Three Equals Chaos -- now, on to the real question, how to control the uncontrollable.
Forget about the ice melting.... (Score:2, Funny)
It's irresponsible... (Score:2, Insightful)
Although it's tempting to point a finger and yell about global warming, I would opt for some actual scientific study of the situation. For example, Mt. Kilamanjaro is in Tanzania... not exactly your most industrialized country... and is surrounded by nations like Mozambique, DR of Congo, Zambia, Uganda, and Kenya. Only one of those nations has any significant industry to speak of (Kenya). So where are all of these greenhouse gases coming from to melt Mt. Kilimanjaro's ice cap? The greenhouse gases certaintly aren't more concentrated there than in the more industrialized areas of the world.
I'm not saying this problem is not due to global warming, however... I'm merely saying that there needs to be more serious scientific study on the issue.
Re:It's irresponsible... (Score:2)
Sure you and I would opt for scientific study. But that would result in theory, theory could be proven as fact, and facts would confuse the issue. This is an emotional arguement, not a scientific one.
You are correct that this should be studied, but that will not play in the emotional drama that the enviromentalists participate in.
On the other hand (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not to say that I don't think global warming is real. I've seen enough other proof to believe that it's real. It's just that this specific data on Kilmanjaro (at least, what I've seen so far) doesn't seem to say anything more than that the Killmanjaro glaciers are shrinking. I don't have enough data to tell if this shrinkage pattern is a good bad or neutral indicator.
Re:On the other hand (Score:3, Informative)
While almost all climate scientists agree global warming is happening, some are still unsure about whether it is being caused by humans.
Re:On the other hand (Score:2)
Before we were burning oil as a species, and adding carbon to the atmosphere and causing global warming; we were burning coal as early as the 1880's, and doing the same thing.
Max
Double Vision (Score:2, Interesting)
Time for an expedition to the other peak.
(putting a hand over one eye) [graphicszone.net]
Well, that'll save a bit of time.
Re:On the other hand (Score:2)
Don't worry (Score:5, Funny)
They'll come running back to high ground when the polar ice caps start melting.
Better coverage (Score:5, Informative)
However, this article [ohio-state.edu] makes it clear the author blames a good portion of the recent loss on global warming.
It also tells a dramatic story of environmental disaster not caused by people, both fairly recently:
- The core data showed that in 1790, the cycle changed, the rains lessened and drought took hold in the region, a condition that continued for seven years until 1796 when the monsoons returned.
as well as 4,000 years ago:"That event was major," Thompson said. "It killed more than 600,000 people in one region of India alone. And that was at a time when global populations were much less than they are today." (Estimates place the world population in 1800 at 980 million.) "If a similar event occurred today, the social and economic disruptions would be horrendous," he said. Current world population is just over 6 billion people.
- That wet period ended and the ice corings show that Africa slid into a deep drought about 4,000 years ago.
This dry period, said Thompson, is also found in other records, including some written history.
So, yeah, global warming is pretty important. But compared to Mother Nature, we look like rank amateurs. But that's ok... we appear to be rapidly catching up."This dry period appears in the historic record in Egypt," he said. "Writings on tombs talk about sand dunes moving across the Nile and people migrating. Some have called this the Earth's first dark age."
Africa was not alone in the global drought. Thompson said other records show that civilizations during this period collapsed in India, the Middle East and South America.
Re:Better coverage (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, the earth has already been through some dramatic ups and downs in the past: the earth will survive, obviously. But will there always be room for us? Our environment is not a simple linear system; our human activities have an impact far beyond the human scale.
Personally, I think our "minor" inputs (greenhouse gases, extinctions, deforestatrion, etc.) could easily lead to a global weather system that reorganizes itself into a new "stable" state that we may not like at all... one in which humanity has to make some pretty big changes to its lifestyle choices.
Many people seem to use ignorance as a shield, choosing to avoid grappling with unpleasant problems. So, the question isn't "what should I do?", because that is more of a long conversation and lifetime commitment to change. The real question is: "do I care?"
If the answer is "not really", don't worry: you have lots of company.
Re:Better coverage (Score:2, Insightful)
And half of the population is dumber that the rest
Ignorance is the privilege of the unkowing ones. Sorrow's the burden of the intelligent people.
> So, the question isn't "what should I do?"
It is. But is the answer "I should go seek cover in cave"?
Most certainly not. But neither should it be "I can't do anything about it anyway." or "What I do doesn't matter anyway".
One isn't required to change ones whole lifestyle (well, actually it is, but one can't expect it)
It's the little things that count.
Don't drive with your car to get somewhere just around the corner. It's better for your health anyway (Unless you're in Alaska in winter, that is)
In winter it's cold, and summer hot. Try to adapt yourself, not your surroundings. (That means, you don't have to be able to run around in shorts in winter, not that you've to sit freezing under 6 blankets)
Isolate your house. When the snow on your roof is melting and it is not spring something went wrong.
Turn of the electronics, you don't use. That includes light. (Is there a light, when no one sees it?)
Just be aware of it and use your common sense.
And often, economics and ecology work just fine together.
My philosophy: Try at least to be a little bit better than the people around you.
Re:Better coverage (Score:2)
I have my doubts about common sense. That's just me, though: Mr. Pathologically Unconventional, pleased to meet you.
And often, economics and ecology work just fine together.
Huh? I'm not aware of any examples. Well, I know that some companies can maintain a low ecological "footprint", but this is not a matter of the economy ENCOURAGING it. If we redefine capitol as "the means of production, AND the bio-infrastructure which allows an economy to exist", then yes, our economy would be rational. Then, meeting the needs of capitol would make sense.
My philosophy: Try at least to be a little bit better than the people around you.
Heh. "Better" is just a word. "Wiser" is probably a little more objective. Let's try for wiser.
Re:Better coverage (Score:2)
> I have my doubts about common sense.
>> And often, economics and ecology work just fine together.
>Huh? I'm not aware of any examples. [...] some companies [...]
Well, it was primarily targeted for home use, as you may see from my suggestions.
Then, please let me reformulate these sentences. And make let me put it more directly.
Just be aware and use your head for thinking.
Doing something for the enviroment may even save you some bucks.
For example, buy yourself a cheep, small car.
Forget your ego and comfort.
But somehow, this formulation seemed a bit unelegant to me, almost offensive.
First sentence implies, that the reader may be mentally handycapped, the second that he is avaricious. The last part may implicate that the he is compensating for something
>Let's try for wiser
According to my limited knowledge of the english language "wiser" primarily reflects the internal state of person and to a lesser extend ones deeds.
But since I'm not a native speaker, I'm no authority on this matter.
I've to admit "better" is a bit vague.
P.S.: Dear Reader, please don't feel offended, when some parts actually apply to you. Take it with a grain of salt.
P.P.S: That doesn't mean that said parts actually have to apply to the Dear Reader, when he feels offended.
P.P.P.S: goto P.S.
Re:Better coverage (Score:2)
Well, I think most quotes are appropriate for only a certain situation.
I think the above quote should one remember to be humble, but considering a certain task at hand, I like the chinese proverb:
The man who removes a mountain begins by carrying away small stones.
Re:Better coverage (Score:2, Flamebait)
You can't be as tired of those conjectures as I am of hearing Neo-Ludites attempting to use Global Warming as an excuse to implement thier agenda to "counter global warming". These are the same kinds of people who espoused radical forms of Socalism a generation ago, and who will seek new excuses to exert control over the world economy if reserach does show that Global Warming is a natural phenomia that humans had little if any part in.
The Causes and efects of Global Warming need to be researched, and if humans have played a major role in causing warming, and if the warming will have a major negative impact on the lives of future generations, then it's time to take action to check it.
The Idea of taking actions that will result in major changes in lifestyles in the present without assurances that it will result in an improved lifestyle for future generations is an absurdity. In the 20th Century the Socilal Planners created the nightmares in National Socalist Germany, In the Soviet Union, In China's Cultural Revoulation, and the Killing Fields of Cambodia. On a lesser scale they destroyed the hability of American Cities and created vast housing projects that quicly truned into drug and crime ridden hell holes. After the failures of the past Century the Social Planners are now trying to scare us into turning the world economy over to them to "stop" Global Warming.
Re:Better coverage (Score:5, Interesting)
1) people have forgotten the value of philosophy in resolving problems at the highest level of abstraction (ie: we need to change our ideas if we want to change the world)
and 2) our systems of governance, at all levels, and in all jurisdictions, need to be smarter. making decisions with one eye closed and blinders on can hardly lead to wise choices.
It is not any one change I want to see, but a change to the way we deal with change. A system that learns. A system that knows what "best practices" and "stakeholder representation" means. And one that is *gasp* based on ethics and transparency, as opposed to the Machiavellian hypocrisy we call government these days.
So, no, I don't want to change the status quo based on some beef of being kicked around by popular kids (which I was), but because I really think the status quo is the product of a rigid rule-based system that represents the interests of elitist and short-sighted power-mongers, be they capitalist or communist. But if four hundred at "the top" have to suffer to save four billion at "the bottom", then too bad... I was never that much into pyramids, anyhow.
tourism and bananas (Score:5, Interesting)
Kili is in Africa and in Africa NOTHING is as simple as it seems. Aside from global climate change, there is some local climate change going on at the foot of the mountain. Specifically, a large rainforest is being clear-cut for timber. Loss of this forest is changing local rainfall patterns--i.e. the forest isn't "catching" the airborne moisture anymore, and so either the rain isn't falling or it's falling but not being absorbed by the forest and running off. Less rain, less water in the river, and also increased sedimentation of the riverbanks. After this, obviously the tourists don't want to see a clear-cut mountain, and the reduced rain and increased silting irritates the farmers who live at the base of the mountain.
So there's a fight going on between the loggers, farmers, and tourism people. Some of the farmers actually double as tour guides on the mountain; when I was in Tanzania a couple of years ago I took a guided tour from a farmer who earned some extra income (1 US$=750 Tanzanian shillings at the time) by hauling white folk around the mountain. And loss of tourism revenue in that area is a big deal. For a town where the richest man in town is the richest because he owns a truck and carries the farmers' bananas 6 hours by road to the capital Dar es Salaam, tourism and farming interests really, really, really want to keep their income flowing. At the same time the loggers want to keep their jobs. No easy answer here.
Drop in tourism feared?!?!! (Score:5, Insightful)
"The other bad thing about tourists on Kilimanjaro is all the trash they leave behind. People are simply not capable of cleaning up after themselves. People should not be allowed to climb such a wonderful mountain if they are not going to use it responsibly. Read the rest here [classroom.com]."
It is really disgusting to see these "3xtr3m3" travellers go to exiting Kilimanjaro trips - in colonnial spirit, latest hightech equipment, a few slaves carrying everything and enjoying gourmet dinners while on the way to top. I mean there is nothing wrong if you respect the environment and don't throw trash around. But the latest megatrend that every IT manager has to climb Kilimanjaro to be something is rather amusing in it's sickness.
Re:Drop in tourism feared?!?!! (Score:3, Informative)
Really? (Score:2)
Is this recent? Having just posted a reply saying there is no garbage, i'm a bit surprised
Garbage (Score:3, Interesting)
Total bollocks. Kilimanjaro is one of the most well protected national parks in Africa. The Tanzanian government controls the number of passes that it gives out each year to avoid too many people going up, and when I climbed it I can't remember seeing a single piece of litter. As the article you reference mentioned, wood is carried up the mountain to be used in fires - in other words, not a single branch on the whole mountain is ever used as firewood.
The fact that the Tanzanian economy is heavily dependent on tourism, and that the tips the porters get for 5 days work are equivalent to a months wages there are all good things.
Now, if you want to complain about litter and garbage on Everest, go ahead, I'd support you - but Kilimanjaro (along with all the main Tanzanian tourist spots) is an example of eco-tourism at it's best.
Re:Garbage (Score:2)
Well, it's good if that's true. But unfortunately atleast according to 2 of my friends and one documentary the situations has changed very dramatically to worse direction within last 4 years. 4 more into same direction, and it's too late.
CNN story (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/10/17/kilima
I'm not a conservative... (Score:3, Interesting)
My opinions may be a bit strong... but I'm open to people with insightful commentaries both for and against my viewpoints on this... I don't profess to be an ecologist... but the commentaries I've read that attribute this to a healthy, natural Earth cycle have, thus far, been far more convincing.
Last Year's Expedition (Score:2, Funny)
(There isn't a BoMP on Slashdots, is there?)
Doesn't make sense. (Score:4, Insightful)
Global Warming (Score:2, Funny)
Global Warming
powered by
with support from
*all names in this posting are to be considered fictitious*
Re:Global Warming (Score:4, Informative)
We are rapidly approaching a time when most cars will be coming out with zero or near-zero emissions systems. Some are already out now.
Aim your bitching more towards the factories and coal burners of the world. The car companies are literally cleaning up their acts.
Re:Global Warming (Score:2)
But I still think we should clean up the polution. I doubt it affects the weather all that much, but less polution sure does make it easier to breath.
CO2 Banned by UN... (Score:4, Funny)
Dr. Ivan Onlyinhale says this should not be to much of a problem. "If nothing else, the sanctions that will be imposed if we don't find a replacement gas for exhalation will solve our population explosion".
I saw a program the other day (Score:3, Informative)
11 Millennia ago...what was happening? (Score:2)
Decrease in volume? (Score:5, Insightful)
> in volume...
Uhm. If the ice cap is in the process of melting, those rivers should be seeing an INCREASE in volume. The fact that the volume is going down indicates either:
(1) That ice cap has been melting for a LONG time, and is only now running out, putting a crack in the theory that global warming has recently become significant, or
(2) The rivers are decreasing in volume for some other reason, most likely drought; that drought might also be responsible for the decrease in the size of the ice cap, since melt would not be replenished as quickly. The drought is definitely a change in climate, but blaming it on "global warming" is about as unscientific as the argument, "ice melts because things get hotter. Must be global warming."
Re: Are you sure of your facts? (Score:2, Interesting)
Nature's report on Lonnie Thompson's work (Ohio State University) says
Seems convincing to me. Especially since it's the Andes as well
BUT are we talking decreased flow all year round or just the dry season months, when melting ice feeds the rivers?
100,000 melting ice cubes can fill a bath. 10 fill a glass
Re: melting ice, lowered rivers (Score:4, Informative)
There's only a small "sweatband" of snow left on Kilimanjaro, the rest is (steep) scree and rock slopes.
So much for the pleasure of glissading back down after you summit!
Dryness, not heat (Score:4, Insightful)
To hear ecowackjobs tell it you'd assume there were humans around polluting 12,000 years ago and they all suddenly died off so that the ice cap could form. Jesus, people, the Earth changes all the time, sometimes wetter and sometimes drier, sometimes warmer and sometimes cooler, and sometimes in different ways in different places at the same time.
I am not a Republican. I do not drive a SUV. I am, however, a thinking man not prone to wild-eyed fanaticism over things I cannot claim to understand.
And this is making the oceans less salty (Score:2)
It's not melting! (Score:3, Interesting)
Did anyone notice. !? (Score:3, Insightful)
But apperently felis_panthera just knows from experince that if anything is melting, it must be global warming:
This sentence is a blaitent lie. Read the article. It doesnt even have the words "global warming" within the text of the article, let alone blame global warming for the melting.
Re:Conservat-tives? Hel-lo-o? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Conservat-tives? Hel-lo-o? (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, woolly mamoths are the shiznutz, but, as we all know, it would require more than a little bit of cold weather for them to re-evolve.
Maybe we could just take some elephants, throw them up in northern canada, and cover them in shag carpeting
Re:Conservat-tives? Hel-lo-o? (Score:2)
A recent paper theorizes (with some significant evidence) that the buffalo survived because the tribes were so warlike that buffalo had connected, large zones of no hunting - no man's lands where hunters would be killed by rival tribes.
But wooly mammoths are indeed cool. And their meat apparently tastes good. A field biologist acquaintance of mine enjoyed mammoths steaks in Alaska one time when a flood uncovered a frozen mammoth.
Re:Conservat-tives? Hel-lo-o? (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, I'll bite. Not really a hard line conservative, but certainly far enough over on the right to take this one on.
First off, anyone claiming that global warming is going to hold off an ice age couldn't possibly be bright enough to hold any kind of political position. Furthermore, if we're just talking about straight party line, that is NOT the position conservatives take on the matter.
The argument from the right is that humans just aren't capable of causing the massive changes being claimed. If warming is happening, the causes are most likely due to cyclical changes our environment goes through. Burn what ya like, it won't make a lick of difference.
Of course, over on the left we're all doomed unless nobody ever burns anything ever again. Every match that's struck or deoderant sprayed is going to lift the average temperature to the 100's of degrees.
Personally, I'm strongly of the opinion that both of these viewpoints are harmful. Over on the right there seems to be a lack of consideration for other very localized harm burning nasty stuff can cause. As a lifelong inhabitant of Los Angeles I've seen this first hand.
The view on the left is just as harmful though. First, the non-stop claims about so many different dangers goes a long way to desensitizing the populace, as well as policy makers. The enviromentalists are a political movement, not a scientific body. Need to do something about the problem NOW, regardless if we really understand the problem or not.
When it comes right down to it, I don't believe we have conclusively proven two very key points. Is the global temperature really increasing? That seems to depend on which group of scientists looking at which data, then filtered through a LOT of political interests.
The second point; if it is warming, what exactly is causing it? The right claims not us humans, the left claims they've got it all figured out. In truth, we really don't know what in the heck is going on. It may very well be a combination of cyclical changes along with human factors. Meterology is a damn complex science, and one we're still trying to figure out.
Okay, so I probably wouldn't get invited to too many conservative parties with this post. I suppose calling for "rabid conservatives" gets a pass to the "kneejerk liberal" get togethers though.
Re: Conservatives? Hello? -- Dangerous Cause/Effec (Score:3, Insightful)
My dad used to warn me about the dangers of equating an effect with a cause, as evidenced by...
"Major League Baseball causes snow to melt"
Because:
1. I notice that snow melts in the spring
2. I notice that baseball starts in the spring.
"The Earth is getting warmer, due to a variety of pollutants."
Because:
1. The Earth has been getting warmer for more than 100+ years
2. Pollutants have been used in force for 100+ years
The Earth naturally warms and cools, though it would be irresponsible to completely ignore the issue. We also need environmentalists to treat this as a science and not a religion.
The EPA actually considered (albeit breifly) making backyard barbeques illegal because of the pollution associated with it.
--Joey
Re: Conservatives? Hello? -- Dangerous Cause/Effec (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps had you added "3. We know that certain pollutants cause warming", then you would have had a more informative post.
Your comment about environmentalists treating global warming as religion and not science, is very ironic given that the vast majority of climatic scientists support the theory behind human induced global warming.
Los Angeles and air pollution. (Score:4, Interesting)
As someone married to an American Indian, who grew up on a west-coast reservation (of a different tribe - her mom was a teacher) with degree in history among her collection (and her dad was a history professor), let me tell you something about Los Angeles (that she brings up whenever it an air pollution are mentioned together B-) ).
Seems the local Indian name for the area translates to "Valley of the Smokes". The shape of the land and the wind patterns over much of the year trap airborne pollution - so badly that a single campfire would smoke it up for a day or more.
It's a testimony to US automobile technology (even if driven by legislation) that so many cars can now operate in that valley without photochemical smog being so thick that the light is blocked.
By the way: DON'T call them "Native Americans". It annoys them. (If you're born here YOU are a "Native American".) "American Indians", however, is a running "ignorant/stupid/crazy European invaders" joke: They were so dumb they thought they were in India - half a world away, Ho Ho! B-) (A poll of members of a large number of tribes showed the preference for "A. I." over "N. A." runs in the 80s-90s% range.)
Re:Los Angeles and air pollution. (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm, I'd always heard it was the "Valley of the Haze", or some such thing. Not debating the point, just what I had thought it was. Even without campfires the area would be hazy on a regular basis just due to the sea air getting trapped.
Another intereresting bit of history has to do with when the term "smog" was first coined. The LA Times used to sell or give out these hard bound coffee table books with front pages going back to the late 1800's, which is where I got this.
As the US was ramping up to deal with the coming war with Japan, the factories in the area seriously ramped up production. With no controls at all on these things you had tons of smoke going up, but not out.
In a rather sudden way, the morning sky had turned orange. Residents were thinking that they were being gassed by the Japanese. Pearl had just been attacked after all, so the paranoia on the west coast was high. One of the reporters for the Times said something to the effect that it looked like a combination of "smoke" and "fog".
I honestly don't recall if the reporter actually stated "smog", but the phrase caught on.
It's a testimony to US automobile technology (even if driven by legislation) that so many cars can now operate in that valley without photochemical smog being so thick that the light is blocked.
Cars were a factor, but not the true cause. It takes a combination of controls on both vehicles and industry to keep things under control here. Just from what I've seen in my 30 some odd years residing here, things have gotten a LOT better.
By the way: DON'T call them "Native Americans". It annoys them.
Sounds like I'd best stick with "Hey you!" and leave it at that.
Personally, I have zero use for hyphenated Americans of any sort. It's divisive and demeaning. A citizen of this nation is an "American".
Re:Conservat-tives? Hel-lo-o? (Score:3, Interesting)
The argument on the right (although not constrained to those holding right-wing views) is composed of several parts:
1) The science and evidence is far from conclusive. In fact, it is riddled with uncertainties, systematic errors, and bias.
2) Even if it is true, the best thing to do is to learn to adapt to it. The reason is that the steps required to prevent it (given the IPCC estimates) are so dramatic that they will not be implementable by real political systems. Furthermore they are so drastic that they will result in massive economic distruption. Kyoto, for example, would have such a small climate effect as to me not measurable over 100 years (see the IPCC data if you don't believe me!) Even most of its proponents accept that it would cost a lot of money (which would not go towards investment and thus would be a net loss to the world economy).
3) Attempting to predict the course of human technology and political behavior over the next 100 years is sheer folly - even harder than predicting the climate! Imagine if global warming was a big deal in 1902. I suspect little events like WW-I, WW-II, the rise of communism and the numerous unforseen technological changes would have derailed both all predictions and all international accords to prevent it.
There are, of course, some on the right whose viewpoints are as stated. The most visible example is Rush Limbaugh, whose knowledge of science is stubbornly zero, and who thus has indeed stated that mankind is too insignificant to cause such changes. But those views shouldn't be taken seriously.
Re:Conservat-tives? Hel-lo-o? (Score:3, Informative)
The thing that Rush often mentions are the various large volcano erruptions that have occurred within written history. Comparing and contrasting these natural events to what industry spews out into the sky.
One thing that's kind of curious here is that I don't believe your views on this would be all that much different than what Rush has presented on his show. He's made comments concerning Kyoto that sound quite a bit like what you're saying.
He sort of becomes this 2 dimensional caricature of the right wing to critics who don't listen to what he's actually saying. Personally, I have my disagreements with where he stands on certain issues, but the show is worth the listen as he rarely shows up without facts to back up his arguments. He really isn't a propoganda mouth piece as is often claimed.
Re:Conservat-tives? Hel-lo-o? (Score:5, Insightful)
OK: so we've proven, conclusively that we can make massive changes in the local ecology. The fact that we can undeniably do it on a local scale adds credence to the idea that we can do the same on a global scale, rather than taking away.
The view on the left is just as harmful though. First, the non-stop claims about so many different dangers goes a long way to desensitizing the populace, as well as policy makers. The enviromentalists are a political movement, not a scientific body. Need to do something about the problem NOW, regardless if we really understand the problem or not.
This isn't a left problem. It's a press problem and a math problem. People don't understand mathematics and statistics. The press plays on this in their sensationalism. Both the right and the left play off of this. As an example: Smoking kills 7000 people a week. This is more than twice what was killed on Sept. 11. Unfortunately someone dieing of cancer or in a smoking related fire is very hard to get sensational film on...
The problem with global warning -- like with smoking -- is that the obvious response time is not instantaneous. A kid who starts smoking in 2000 isn't likely to die of cancer for at least 20 years -- the smoking/cancer ratio also isn't 1-1. This has allowed the Tobacco companies to hide behind plausable deniablility for decades. (that and the fact that some publishers are scared of losing the very substantial and consistent income that they get from those companies, which can leave them careful about pushing the issue)
Similarly, with global warming, Driving your car 2 blocks to the corner store doesn't suddenly cause a drought. This is rather like a slow stream of water cutting through a rock. The results aren't obvious on the first day -- or even the first decade -- but we're no longer questioning whether it happens.
When it comes right down to it, I don't believe we have conclusively proven two very key points. Is the global temperature really increasing? That seems to depend on which group of scientists looking at which data, then filtered through a LOT of political interests.
GLobal warming was considered an interesting and plausable -- but unproven -- theory in the early '70s. It had, however, passed the first scientific milestone of scientific plausability. It had proven consistent with past observations and generally accepted rules. The second step was to predict certain results that hadn't been observed so far. and wouldn't happen if the theory was wrong.
This is where we run into the long response cycle of Global warming: It took years and decades to collect evidence for/against the theory of global warming, but the proponderance of evidence so far has been strongly for that global warming is really happaning. The question is no longer 'if'. It is now a question of what will be the effects and what can/should we do about it.
Like water on the stone where there is no 'the' droplet which you can not drop on the stone to prevent the wearing, Driving to the store or using hairspray does make a difference. There is that final droplet the dropping of which will cause the two halves of the rock to split apart -- but by that time it's too late to save the rock. Similarly, with global warning, by the time the results are catastrophic, it will be too late for us to reverse the process.
Re:Conservat-tives? Hel-lo-o? (Score:4, Funny)
If ever there were a noble reason to be a kneejerk liberal, that'd do it.
You have regained my respect sir
Re:Conservat-tives? Hel-lo-o? (Score:4, Insightful)
For the last 420,000 years, atmospheric CO2 concentration has remained in a semistable equilibrium, between 180 and 280 ppm. Since 1750 the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has risen to 367 ppm. That's a global change.
If we wanted to raise or lower sea level by a meter, could we do it? Can we stop a hurricane from destroying Lousiana, or cause some flooding to occur in northwestern Mexico that needs it? No.
I guess you're saying the planet can't be getting hotter because we can't steer hurricanes around? Our lack of fine grained control over weather events doesn't somehow imply that we have no influence over climate in general.
Re:Global Warming? (Score:5, Funny)
And how is that ice 11,000 years old when the earth is only ~6000?
Another pagan for my enemies list.
Re:Global warming etc etc (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, it's still there and as big as ever... it's just not newsworthy anymore.
It's the liberal's dilemma; once the scare they create has forced politicians into making policy changes, things begin to stabalize. Then five years later the conservatives point and hold it up as an example of liberal fallability.