World's Largest Tropical Glacier Vanishing 462
Socguy wrote with a link to a CBC article about the rapidly disappearing Peruvian glacier known as the Quelccaya ice cap. The world's largest tropical glacier was a hot topic this past Thursday at the meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Glaciologist Lonnie Thompson, and a team of Ohio state scientists, produced the stunning news that Quelccaya and similar formations are melting at a rate of some 60 metres per year. While polar ice caps have commanded attention in the discussion of global warming to date, these tropical caps are crucial to the well-being of ecosystems relying on an influx of mountain stream fresh water.
The real reason it's vanishing (Score:5, Funny)
When will the denials stop? (Score:5, Interesting)
Again, we're just talking at the level of whether or not warming is happening, and it clearly is. The evidence is there, as is shown by the melting of glaciers in Peru and Greenland, a decade of warm winters in the northern US and Canada, ice-free passage through the Arctic Ocean, and so forth.
I'm just wondering when those people who are standing so steadfast against reality will admit that they've been wrong.
Re:When will the denials stop? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I am of the Most Holy Order of the Earth is 6007 Years Old Club and thou must be one of thine swarthy heathens from that Earth is 6993 Years Old sect!
Avast! I'm coming to DEMOCRATIZE thee!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the reason is that for most people, global warming means "global warming caused by human activity." That, of course, has yet to be proven. Alas, too many people take it for granted that global warming is caused by, and only by human activity and tend to insult anybody who doesn't agree with them.
Re:When will the denials stop? (Score:5, Informative)
Depends on what your definition of "proven" is. The certainty in the attribution of the total of all significant +/- forcings is 90% or higher (ref: 2007 IPCC-SPM, figure SPM-2). The forcings attributed to humans outweighs all other forcings combined. ie: It is 90% certain that humas are responsible for greater than 50% of the total warming effect obserevd.
Note that the IPCC is by it's nature a conservative document, as it should be when 2500 "scientists agree". This means that at very best there is a 10% chance humans are not the cause and as each day passes with no viable alternative explaination combined with data sets that continue to improve, the certainty will increase.
Having said that, it is true the cause is not as certain as the observed warming itself but like all scientific concepts the idea will never be "proven", the best we can hope for is "virtually certain", eg: it is "virtually certain" the sun will rise in the morning but not "absolutely certain".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:When will the denials stop? (Score:4, Insightful)
You just saved the world from the ignorant climate scientists! Have another cookie.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
SARS is still a serious threat of epidemic, after killing thousands where it has spread in China.
Bird flu is an even greater epidemic threat, already starting to kill dozens of humans where it has spread in SE Asia/Pacific, and thousands of birds now starting to be found in Europe.
Mad cow disease has killed people and is still a threat, even though many thousands of cattle have been destroyed to stop it due to regula
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Epithets (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, that's the Catch-22 we all face. If global warming wipes out man-kind as many have suggested, or at least a large portion of it, many will say, "See, we told you so but you wouldn't listen. Now see what YOU did." Even if all forms of energy are banned, you'll say, "YOU waited too long and now it's too late. YOU should've listened!" Of course, any
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Kind of like the "Man's driving climate change" argument, eh?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:When will the denials stop? (Score:5, Informative)
This recent article linking cosmic rays and global warming is the start.
This has already been debunked [realclimate.org] I'm afraid.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Should we posit that more polar bears equals a cooler planet? That polar bears are critical to the regulation of temperature around the globe?
You need to show causation, not just correlation. And you didn't show correlation anyway. How often to the poles move about? Does that match the cycle of previous warming/cooling periods? Is there any link whatsoever?
Re: (Score:2)
who clearly knows more than the legions of scientists who attest that there is global warming that can be correlated to human release of carbon dioxide are a pack of liars.
Remind me... are these the same scientists, or different ones, that attested with equal certainty as to human activity causing Global Cooling [wikipedia.org]?
Humans most certainly have an impact on the environment. We are part of it, there is no way we cannot. I just question the current scientific fervor because, quite frankly, we as a species have this tendency to go through fits of hysterics that aren't always warranted.
Should we be kinder to our environment? Absolutely. Do I believe that the world is going to come
Re:When will the denials stop? (Score:4, Insightful)
Heh, I'll bite.
My main issue with this global warming thing isn't the scientific fervor, it's the political ball it's become. You see, the scientific fervor, imo, derives from the way scientists are generally treated by politicians and businessmen. If you're a scientist, and your research indicates someone will or should stop making money, or that potentially unpopular laws should be passed, you're hated by the powers that be. So I suspect something of a martyr syndrome going through the scientific community over this, and am willing to disregard hysterics from the scientific community for that reason.
However, they are smart people who know what they're talking about. They could be wrong, but I don't really see how any of the recommended measures, if taken incrementally to make the money-grubbing politicians and blood-sucking lawyers happy, will be bad for us on the whole. We get more efficient technology out of the deal, significant technological advances, and serious improvements in living conditions in exchange for what? Recognizing we might be capable of trashing our planet? Sounds good to me!
But what really irks me is the way politicians are playing the science card and trying to manipulate the scientific community. The damage we might suffer on the whole as a result of the fight is imo far greater than the damage we might cause to ourselves via global warming.
Re:When will the denials stop? (Score:5, Informative)
Remind me... are these the same scientists, or different ones, that attested with equal certainty as to human activity causing Global Cooling?
Different ones. Also there were a handful of climatologists calling cooling (judging by the infamous Newsweek article, I still have not been shown a peer-reviewd paper arguing cooling), almost the entire profession agree that we are facing a warming trend, plus that it is man-made.
See this is how it works. In the 70s a handful of climatologists (contra the mainstream of the profession) argued for global cooling. In the 90s a handful of climatologists (contra the mainstream) argued that Global Warming was not occuring. In both these instances the mainstream of the profession was proved correct.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're a pickup truck republican wingnut, you go turn on your AC to counter the heat and ignore the fact y
Re: (Score:2)
* You are inside your house with the heat on, windows closed.
* You are sweating, uncomfortable, and wish it would be cooler
If you're a pickup truck republican wingnut, you go turn on your AC to counter the heat and ignore the fact you are partly at fault for the uncomfortable environment in your house.
So let me get this straight... If it's hot out... and you have the heater on... i
Re:When will the denials stop? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. That was the point of the analogy -- the "tree hugger" upon recognizing his complicity in being uncomfortable, takes reasonable steps to minimize that discomfort. And of course, the warming deniers are largely from the right wing. If you feel it makes the right wing look foolish, well, that was the point. If you don't want to look like clowns, take off the squeeky noses.
Re:When will the denials stop? (Score:4, Insightful)
That said, unless we can somehow damp the oscillation we're going to be very warm indeed if the trend continues.
Also, there was another post earlier characterizing all global warming skeptics as backward-thinking fundamentalist christians who believe in intelligent design. That kind of characterization contributes nothing to the discussion, It just sets up a straw man for everyone else to viciously attack. It's not funny, it's not insightful, and it's not intelligent. I'm sure if you look through my history of posts I've said stupid stuff like that too. However, it's been my experience that if you want to convince anyone of anything you can't go around calling them a moron or you're going to get the door slammed in your face.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I agree, that's going way too far.
Most of them believe in creationism.
Re:When will the denials stop? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong. We have the (rapidly shrinking) antarctic ice, whose layers of melt-and-freeze give us a record stretching back some 65,000 years. In all that time -- eight times longer than since the dawn of civilization -- we can observe correlating CO2 and temperature levels. In all of those cycles, not ONCE has the CO2 gotten to the point where it is now.
If it's a "long-term" effect, it's long-term in a species-ending geological sense. It may be "just natural", but if so it'll still end us if we don't do something to offset and moderate it.
And, even if it's just a natural cycle, embracing the scientific status quo is a means for American Profit. Or do you really think that somehow all of the American genius vanished after WWII? A new paradigm that rewards innovation will mean American profits. Maybe different Americans, maybe the same Americans -- but unless you own a large GM portfolio, you really don't care.
Re: (Score:2)
So you are saying that CO2 correlates with temperature... the more CO2, the hotter... and there is more CO2 in the atmosphere than ever before... has it not ONC
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Two things should be mentioned here. The first is that the OP missed a zero. It is 650,000 years [wikipedia.org]. Secondly, while that may be very small in comparison to the earth's history of some 6.5 billion years, it is quite a lot in comparison to the history of modern humans (only around 200,000 years). Sure things have been different in the past, but then the world was a dramatically different place in the past. What we should concern ourselves with is the environ
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Where does this say agriculture? (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yep, that pretty much summarizes the situation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Second Life (Score:3, Funny)
Also, it's great if you are a furry.
Peru is not the only one in trouble (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
If the glaciers are receding is it because of lower amounts of precipitation or is it from rain instead of snow?
If it's less precipitation, then obviously there will be a water shortage, but so far I've seen no mention of less precipitation. If the same amount of water falls from the sky each year then the dam will simply have a steady supply of water instead of a shortage in winter and a rush in the spring.
You're missing something (Score:4, Insightful)
- snow falls and accumulates into snowpack over the winter
- snowpack melts during spring and summer, supplying water for irrigation during the growing season
- snowpack doesn't melt completely during summer. This means there's a reserve that can handle a couple of dry years
Future situation
- rain falls during the winter and runs off to the sea
- no water during the summer
- a couple of dry winters makes things even worse
Do you have any idea how huge a dam you'd need to hold water equivalant to the snow cover on a mountain range?
New Atlantis (Score:2)
Even the NASA data for flood elevations [firetree.net] goes up to only 14m. We've got a lot more ice than that.
Global Warming (Score:5, Funny)
On the subject of Global Warming, allow me to be the first Canadian to say YES, YES, AWESOME, FUCK YEAH!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the company has been way below normal since mid-January.
Global Warming: Bring it on.
Re:Global Warming (Score:4, Insightful)
As long as they think it's snowing all year round here, we're mostly safe from them.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Something like 80% of Canada's population lives within 100km of the border with the US. We're very happy with our neighbours thankyouverymuch. The elect idiot presidents sometimes, but they don't get to see our parliament up close and personal... thank goodness.
Also, given that most of the northern US states are several hundred kilometers north of Ontario's Golden Horseshoe (where 1/3 of Canada's population lives, mainly around Toronto), they have lots of cold places to visit themselv
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Anonymous cowards (Score:5, Insightful)
How can any educated person deny that we have seriously affected our world ecosystem? Species are going extinct everywhere, local climates are fluctuating wildly, and I sure as hell won't be buying any land that is close to our current sea level.
We don't understand the world or even local climate science in enough depth. Our actions seem to be causing changes that are mostly unpredictable. Just because we can't categorically prove it doesn't mean that we aren't the cause. The predictions I see as most reasonable are actually some of the worst case scenarios.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the majority agree that it is getting warmer, not that we did/are doing it.
also (Score:2)
Read what you just typed.
Attitudes Towards Dissent (Score:5, Insightful)
One thing that does and always has moderate me is that when the group think really gets going it can result in comments that are certainly insightful/informative/whatever getting modded down because they are going against the consensus of the group. The point of the moderation system is not to sit around jerking each other off about how much you agree. The point of discussion is to explore different points of view, debate, pontificate, and in general act like intellectuals who are not afraid of dissidents from the group.
I personally think that glaciers melting is a bad thing and that humans probably can take a hunk of the blame for it. That said, it pisses me off when I see completely reasonable arguments to the opposite getting modded down as flames, trolls, or (the slightly more reasonable) overrated. At the same time, we get a dozen one line "See!!!! When will people realize global warming is real!!!!" post modded up like that actually brings something intelligent to the conversation.
This isn't a battle to mod the other sides opinion into oblivion. The point is to actually converse. People are posting as AC because the environment of conversation is completely broken when it comes to this topic. Utter crap that agrees with the majority opinion is getting modded up, and well thought out arguments against the majority opinion are getting slammed down. People shouldn't have to post AC to post a dissenting opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, there are examples like this article of increased temperature. Why the first week of January it was 60 outside here, setting record highs by huge amounts! Of cou
A bit odd (Score:5, Informative)
This isn't meant as an argument in the debate over human-caused global warming; it's just an argument that Quelccaya is probably not good supporting evidence for either side.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A bit odd (Score:5, Interesting)
You haven't thought that through.
Even tho' tropical areas are likely to see a smaller temperature difference than a sub tropical or artic, they're also much more sensitive to said change. According to Real Climate's Tropical Glacier Retreat Page [realclimate.org]:
Climate change flamewar checklist (Score:2)
1. climate change skeptic in self-righteous post promotes solar-cycle theory.
2. climate change believer rapidly ripostes regarding selective fact picking.
3. comments about big-oil funded research
4. "AAAARGH - who cares what's causing it - let's fix it NOW!" i.e. unreasonable PANIC
5. comments arguing for caution, measured response i.e. unreasonable calm
6. some idiot bringing Microsoft in to this.
7. inevitable (yet unamusing) "...PROFIT!" jokes
8. inevitable (yet much deserved) Bush/US bashing.
9. var
Does it even matter if the globe is warming? (Score:5, Insightful)
What about deforestation? Air quality? Mass extinctions? Loss of biodiversity? Water availability and quality? Overpopulation? Non-renewable resource shortages? Nuclear waste? Landfill?
Anyone tasted the air in peak hour traffic in a major city? Isn't that enough to prompt some action?
We don't have to prove the earth is warming for us to realise the damage we are doing! It's a RED HERRING! It's just one issue. What if we solve global warming... then what? Will our attitudes have changed? Will we still be pumping sewage in the ocean, burning coal and cutting down all the trees?
Global Warming isn't a problem unto itself... its a symptom of our abuse of this planet. It's only a poster-boy issue. Both sides need to stop debating - it doesn't matter whether global warming is happening or not. It's OBVIOUS the damage we're doing... that should be enough to prompt us to fix it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
sigh.. do you always form your judgements on an idea based on the opinions of it's nuttiest supporters. Yes there are vocal people who believe pretty much what you say - given that you don't respect their opinions (who does?) why do you let them influence your thinking on this issue?
It's like saying open source is made by evil anarchists because some idiot teenager DOSed SCO's website.
Just a natural phenomenon (Score:3, Insightful)
Global Warming is a simple, natural phenomenon whereby the planet destroys a large percentage of it's population - including humanity, and then starts over again.
Nothing to worry about.
---
Too large a percentage? [douginadress.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Glaciers help to trap more water during the winter than would otherwise remain in the area, and regulate its dispersal.
To imagine the first part of the above, imagine, for a moment, a bank account. Initialy you are just skimming off the interest on the principal. At some point, however, you start dipping into the principal itself. While a portion of the principal remains, you will be receiving more cash than you were while you were just drawing on the interest. When it runs out, however, you no longer
Re: (Score:2)
Re:NOT a problem for the water supply (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And that's one huge and unsupported presumption. The cause of the glaciers' melting is change in local climate. How do we know that the clouds will continue to dump precipitation, or that the rivers will continue to evaporate, in the same way, if the temperature is different?
Re:Emerging from an ice age will have that effect (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh and, even if you believe global warming is a natural phenomenon, you should still be worried. After all, whatever wiped out the dinosaurs was also a natural phenomenon.
http://xkcd.com/c164.html [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age _031208.html [space.com]
or cliamte change on Jupiter?
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2006-05 -04-jupiter-jr-spot_x.htm?POE=TECISVA [usatoday.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you fucking see that it DOESN'T MATTER what's causing the climate change? The reality is now indisputable, and must be dealt with if we're to avoid massive human suffering regardless of whether the cause is natural or man-made. There are options that must be considered, and this pointless bickering is just getting in the way.
Riiiiight... we're going to selectively engineer a global climate when we can't even selectively control other undesirable local weather phenomenon like hurricanes and tornadoes. Hell, we can't even accurately predict them.
Climate is historically self-correcting. I have no reason to believe it is not still so. Why should I believe the 100-year forecast when next week's is typically wildly off the mark?
Re: (Score:2)
Come back when you've got scientific consensus on your side.
Until then, maybe we can start planning how to deal with this. Even if you disagree with the cause, the fact remains that we have to be concerned about the result.
Re: (Score:2)
The whole body of research is summarized in the latest IPCC report. The numbers are:
"The combined radiative forcing due to increases in carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide is +2.30 [+2.07 to +2.53] W/m**-2"
and
"Changes in solar irradiance s
Re: (Score:2)
The single most influential green house gass can explain the night not cooling off as rapidly as you would expect. And this gas is called water vapor. Currently water vapor is primarily considered a feedback instead or a forcing but in this spec
Re: (Score:2)
Whoever told you this is not your friend.
Annual CO2 from volcanic activity, 130 to 230 teragrams(*). Annual CO2 from humans burning things, and not counting deforestation: 20,000 teragrams.
(*)Gerlach, T.M., 1992, Present-day CO2 emissions from volcanoes: Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, Vol. 72, No. 23, June 4, 1991, pp. 249, and 254-255
Re: (Score:2)
According to the page you linked to:
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, I hear that there's a glacier advancing in New Zealand. Maybe it's tropical.
If all the tropical glaciers are receding, then that means the tropics are getting warmer, regardless of whether the poles are warming or prepping for a "Day After Tomorrow" snowstorm.
Re:What isn't being said? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Climate has always gone through fluctuations, what is frightening now is the how much bigger the change is, and how quickly it happens. I don't know how many times we have to explain this.
The world has been warming way longer than cars have been around.
Greenhouse gas emissions have been around longer than cars, it has been inceasing steadily since the start of the Industrial Revolution.
I'm tired of all this bullshit about our generation killing
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do you suspect this? How do you know? Is it likely that there aren't any glaciers advancing?
I've never heard anything to back up your position, so it seems like you're trying to sow some doubt here without any evidence behind you. I'm happy to debate, but you've got to bring something to the table.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've been to Argentina's Perito Moreno glacier, and it's not growing. It does advance at about 2m per day (it's the world's fastest glacier) but massive chunks are falling off all the time. It's a spectacular show. The actual glacier is relatively constant in size - as more ice comes in, more ice falls off.
Given that I have first-hand knowledge of one glaring flaw on that site, I have to question the rest of the data.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Hold on... (Score:2)
Or are you saying that these good things are actually being reported?
Re:What isn't being said? (Score:5, Informative)
Can you back up that statement with a link, or did you just pull some highly speculative piece of bullshit out of your ass?
So the question to ask is: How many tropical glaciers are advancing or staying the same instead of receding? The report does not say, so it is impossible to draw any global conclusions.
Fucking retarded. TFA talked about other glaciers & a few seconds research would have lead you to Tropical Glacier Retreat [realclimate.org] analysis.In short, you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
None of them and people have been noticing this for decades.
I'm a little sick of the foothold creationists have got on this issue which has left the USA opposing even printing anything on this - it is well documented that the climate is changing.
Re: (Score:2)
The valid point you make is that an article about one glacier does not help you determine global climate. What does is the fact that most of them are retreating.
Re: (Score:2)
It's like these folks who are saying "The Eastern seaboard has had its coldest winter or record! Global warming is bunk!" What matters is not so much whether it's heating or cooli
Re: (Score:2)
Now I'm not saying that's what did happen, but it's feasible. Perhaps glacial growth is not so underestimated. On the other hand perhaps it is anyway.
Glacier Girl (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That'd make a fun argument: Citizens vs. Planet Earth.
Citizens: "Planet Earth, you fix the problem, we shouldn't have to as we have evidence to prove that it's not our fault - you're just not playing fair!"
Planet: "Ummmmmmmmmmmm.... naah, fuck ya."
KABOOM
Regardless of all the possibilities of who/what, etc causes climate change, it's all of us who are going to be screwed unless som
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Humans (Score:5, Insightful)
We aren't trying to protect the planet - we are trying to protect ourselves. Concern about global warming is nothing to do with saving the planet, it has everything to do with saving ourselves.
If our technological and industrial society is to survive, we have to address these issues and make sure we still have a relatively cheap energy source that doesn't (long term) threaten the existence of that society. If, through hubris, we allow this society to collapse, there cannot be another industrial revolution for a few hundred million years - because all of the easy-to-get-at resources have been used up: the low hanging fruit of easy to get coal and oil has gone - you now need a technologically advanced society to actually exploit these. We have one chance at surviving long term, otherwise humanity will be doomed to a Middle Ages style existence until it finally dies out.
The planet on the other hand doesn't need saving. The sun has another 5 billion years of main sequence, and the Earth will shrug anything off. However, our society cannot do the same. _All_ concern at doing things to not pollute the environment is not for the purpose of 'saving the planet', it's for the purpose of 'saving human civilization'!