New Photos Show 'Devastating' Ice Loss On Everest 895
Simmeh writes "The BBC reports on new photos of the Himalayas taken from exactly the same position as ones from 1929 and compares the ice coverage. The Asia Society, which did the groundwork, are quoted as saying, 'If the present rate of melting continues, many of these glaciers will be severely diminished by the middle of this century.' I guess the previous claim wasn't too unrealistic."
Easier for denialists (Score:5, Funny)
But won't this make it easier for AGW denialists to climb Everest?
News Flash! (Score:5, Funny)
About 10k years ago, there was glacier over a mile thick right where I am sitting.
Must have been all those SUV driving woolly mammoth bastards!
Re:News Flash! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:News Flash! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ah yes, recycling [cei.org]... Didn't Penn and Teller do an episode [youtube.com] on that?
And what does having fewer kids have to do with anything? Are you trying to breed "ecological concern" out of the species in favor of "religious fundamentalism that doesn't believe in birth control and doesn't give a crap about the planet?" Because that's what happening when you have less kids.
Re:News Flash! (Score:5, Interesting)
Yup most sane people understand that recycling at home is useless (in the separate your crap containers to feel good about yourself) Recycling in general IS effective. Lead recycling is hugely successful and has significantly reduced the need for mining new lead. Steel and metals recycling is hugely sucessful, almost all foundries use scrap metal in their furnaces. Plastics recycling makes us that horribly overpriced plastic decking that the rich people use to feel good on their new 6800 sq foot 8 bedroom home for 2, but there are other things that are real uses like fleece.. just don't get it near open flame as that crap goes up faster than gasoline soaked rags...
Composting at home is recycling that does work well.
Recycling works, it is that feel good, separate your trash, recycling at the curb that is fake. In fact more could be done to help the environment by having these feel good yuppie environmentalists STOP drinking bottled water. Bottled water is really bad for the environment as most bottling plants destroy the aquifer for the area they tap into for the real spring water.... The rest is just city water put in plastic bottles that are not recycled if you don't take the cap and ring off. because the makers are too stupid to make the cap and bottle out of the same plastic. Well not too stupid, it's on purpose... Cheapest price is far more important that recyclability.
Re:News Flash! (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you trying to breed "ecological concern" out of the species in favor of "religious fundamentalism that doesn't believe in birth control and doesn't give a crap about the planet?" Because that's what happening when you have less kids.
I wasn't aware that ecological concern was a genetic trait. I also wasn't aware that religious people "don't give a crap about the planet". I suppose the term "stewards of the Earth" comes from the UFO-origins crowd.
Re:News Flash! (Score:5, Informative)
Ah, yes, that's the problem with climate scientists. They don't appreciate the personal impact of seeing scouring marks on mountains, so they forget that there's been an ice age recently!
Uh, NO. No one ever said "the current interglacial period was all our fault". Ice ages and interglacials are caused by Milankovich cycles, small variations in the earth's orbit and axial tilt.
It's just one thing: those orbital anomalies cause only a very, very small change in temperature by themselves. Not nearly enough to move the earth in and out of an ice age. Yet they have been found to be an excellent explanation for them. Why is that?
Because of climate feedbacks. As white ice sheets melt and turns into dark ocean, the sun absorbs more of the energy striking it. As the oceans warm, their capacity to dissolve gases is reduced, causing them to release higher amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Causing further warming, causing further melting. The earth keeps warming, but all things that become warmer emit more heat radiation. Eventually it becomes hot enough that the heat radiation out is in balance with the additional energy absorbed. But by then the tiny change in temperature from an orbital change has turned an ice age into an interglacial.
I recommend you start read Uppsalainitiativet [blogspot.com] since you presumably speak Swedish.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
About 10k years ago, there was glacier over a mile thick right where I am sitting.
Must have been all those SUV driving woolly mammoth bastards!
I don't know about you, but I'd prefer to see us avoid another ice age if possible. I don't much relish the thought of having to leave everything behind to flee a mile think sheet of ice. Some twit telling me its a 'natural cycle' isn't going to make that any easier. ;)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Tomorrow: Look out! There's a glacier on the horizon!
Slightly more than a year later: Look out! The glacier is almost here!
(Using 20-30 meters per day as a speed, per Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]).
Re:Easier for denialists (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Easier for denialists (Score:5, Funny)
I, for one,...
Re:Easier for denialists (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Easier for denialists (Score:5, Funny)
I believe AGW is "Anti-George-W", in reference to the previous president. Alternatively, it would be "Anti-Global-Warming". Expanding it, "Anti Global Warming Denialists" makes an interesting double negative. I suppose that would be someone who denies that anti global warming activists exist, but I could be mistaken.
Re:Easier for denialists (Score:4, Informative)
Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Re:Easier for denialists (Score:5, Insightful)
"Denialists"? Are you talking about people that deny the Holocaust happened or objective, independent people that question whether man is to blame for "global warming"?
Denalism is by no means limited to Holocaust denial. Along with AIDS denialism, flat-earthism, tobacco denialism and AGW denialism, holocaust denial is merely a species of denialism. For it to be classified as denialism (as opposed to scepticism, for instance), it must involve the outright refusal to accept an empirically verifiable reality, as we can witness with both Holocaust or AGW denial.
Denialism also refers to a set of rhetorical strategies used to create the impression of uncertainty where none exists. Unsurprisingly perhaps, these bear a strong resemblance across the various species of denialism.
Re:Easier for denialists (Score:5, Informative)
Ah, I see. "Denialism" is what zealots used to call "heresy":
No, denialism is what we usually call "unwillingness to accept reality". If a truth is inconvenient (it's times like these I hate the name of that movie) then deny, deny, deny. Well, forget Al Bore for a minute and take a look at the science involved. We know what CO2 does. We know we release orders of magnitude more CO2 than volcanoes, and we know their CO2 is a driver of weather. Cancer rates double in the industrial revolution and denialists want to claim that it's because people live longer, but a) lifespans did not increase so very much at this time and b) we now know beyond the shadow of a doubt that the industrial revolution caused positively carcinogenic compounds in the atmosphere to be multiplied several times. It's always the same; the people who have everything invested in a process of raping the earth want to claim that she was asking for it. You don't have to be a coal miner or a logger to benefit from modern industrial society, of course; every time you discard a disposable plastic plate or get your iPhone replaced for some failure that never should have been made you're not only making your own contribution but you're deriving a feeling of security from the ongoing destruction of the biosphere upon which we depend. When your sense of well-being is dependent on believing a lie, you apparently cling to that lie whether it appears to fit the facts or not.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Another key difference is that Holocaust denialists are just as nutty, but they're pretty much harmless, and it's only other nutcases pulling their strings.
You can't be serious about this can you? Holocaust deniers are usually linked to extremist groups of varying stripes.
The people pulling the denialists' strings are trying to stop serious action on an issue that is somewhere between "serious" and "catastrophic", and through inaction they are making the latter much more likely than otherwise.
Stop serious action? The only serious actions I know of in regard to global warming are those that will a) make some people some serious money, and b) cause some serious changes in our lifesyles for the worse, i.e. lots of us have to live like peasants while a privileged few of us get rich because of the laws and regulations that make the rest of us live like peasants.
Compared to that I'll
Re:Easier for denialists (Score:5, Insightful)
At least those will be equal opportunity changes since Mother Nature and the Universe don't discriminate when it comes time to bring the pain to those unworthy to survive.
You mean the poor farmer in Bangladesh will experience the same hardship from sea level rise than a Miami millionaire? One loses his livelihood and the other has to move his yacht pier up 3 feet - yes, that seems about the same.
More generally, rich people are generally much better isolated from any environmental changes, and also in a much better position to exploit them. Assume the Dutch have to rebuild their dikes - do you really think that most of the money spent will go to the guy who drives the backhoe?
Re:Easier for denialists (Score:4, Informative)
You mean the poor farmer in Bangladesh will experience the same hardship from sea level rise than a Miami millionaire? One loses his livelihood and the other has to move his yacht pier up 3 feet - yes, that seems about the same.
Yes, the 2.8mm/year rate of sea level rise is sure to take away the livelihood of that farmer in Bangladesh... he should start running now, or else he may never escape!!!!!
You don't realize the absurdity of your extremist appeals to emotion BECAUSE YOU DONT EVEN KNOW THE FACTS OF THE VERY SHIT YOUR ARE SUPPORTING.
No, you don't know the facts of the "shit" you are supporting. To start with, Bangaldeshi farmers can't start running because they live in one of the most densely populated areas on earth and the national boundaries there have been drawn in the 20th century to stop traditional migrations. And while 2.8mm/y may sound like nothing, try to remember that a) it has been going on for decades [wikipedia.org], b) that projection is probably too low [newscientist.com] and c) it is already causing serious problems in low-lying island nations such as Tuvalu [elsevier.com] and the Maldives [bbc.co.uk] as well as in Bangladesh [reuters.com] itself.
So get your head out of your fat Western ass and start paying attention.
Re:Easier for denialists (Score:5, Interesting)
I've seen a lot of proposals that could help against climate change, but I've never seen one that would turn people into peasants; quite the contrary, they usually involve a ton of technological progress. The countries who would mainly lose out are the ones that are basing their economy on oil—and those people are often already mostly peasants.
Re:Easier for denialists (Score:5, Funny)
the laws and regulations that make the rest of us live like peasants.
I know, not having two hummers, 4 bathrooms in your bachelor pad, and your own jet makes you a fucking peasant.
Re:Easier for denialists (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay let's see you "go first". Become an early adopter of the post-AGW lifestyle.
First thing : dump your computer, your car, your tv, your telephone. There's just no way that we can have personal computers, cars, or even normal phones (pray you get to keep your cell phone, and forget about smartphones) using only renewable resources. Not going to happen.
Oh and obviously the human population will have to be decimated, even if you do actually give those things up. Forget about birth control, which only has effect after 60 years or-so, assuming you can enforce it globally (assuming, to be blunt, that every nation on earth is prepared to kill "unapproved" babies), which is "too late". So who do we kill ?
Mind you, we'll need to lose somewhere between 60% and 90% of all humans alive. Who do we start with ? To keep in the theme of this thread, perhaps the Jews ? Of course atheists, christians, muslims, hindus and buddhists, even slashdotters won't be far behind. This 60% merely makes "living renewably" an attainable goal, btw, it does not, at all, guarantee we actually do accomplish it.
There are 2 things we can do :
1) attempt to stop climate change
2) ignore it, adapt to changing circumstances, and grow
EVERY species that has chosen option 1, and every human civilization that has done so (according to Jared Diamond) is ...
extinct
(and one can easily name dozens of species and civilizations that have attempted to preserve their environment ... all extinct)
It does not work.
Of course, when there is a climate conference, there is a solar eclipse generated by the amount of private planes converging. So we all know what the politicians and scientists (everyone who goes to such conferences) want ...
Of course, we "have science" so we can do anything, right ? (of course, half of those extinct civilizations did have science too, most had quite extensive agricultural and climatic knowledge. It didn't save them. Why would it save us ?)
Re:Easier for denialists (Score:5, Insightful)
These are some pretty big straw men "OeLeWaPpErKe".
Your scare tactics aren't going to make scientists out of AGW deniers. Nor is the decision of a single person going to make much difference fighting climate change. But there are systemic changes that could be made right now without displacing millions or causing you to give up your iPhone.
And maybe you don't realize how easy it is for those of us that live in big cities to give up our cars or at least to think about what it would take for us to spend fewer of our waking hours behind the wheel. Nor do you appear to understand how much of a benefit it would be for you to give up your TV. It might keep you off of Fox News long enough for you to be deprogrammed.
Are you saying that giving up Science would help us avoid extinction? Now you're scaring me.
Please name the civilizations that have become extinct after attempting to prevent climate change due to profligate use of fossil fuels.
Re:Easier for denialists (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But, two photos is evidence for variation, only, not warming or cooling. Those are trends and need way more data. Yes I know there is LOTS more data. But the problem with global warming is twofold.
First, there are vested interests both in denial and in assertion of global warming. This is not science, this is a war of interests.
Second: CO2 can be absorbed easily and is not toxic. What about persistent, toxic, mass produced, untaxed and uncapped pollutants? While our generation looks at 1C difference in sout
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
How about this
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global [noaa.gov]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know about Waxman's district, but his cosponsor's (Markey (MA)) district has some very low-lying land (sea-level).
Let us say, just for the sake of argument, that the AGWers are correct. What do you expect us to do?
The very raising of the problem may well encourage people to solve it.
The simple fact is after years of searching we simply haven't found anything with the energy density of oil, and short of wiping out a good 60% of the world's population and going back to a pre-industrial society I don't
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Easier for denialists (Score:4, Interesting)
Nearly. I don't know how much Al Gore personally makes from polluting in China, but no matter how much it was it would be a small share of all the money being made by polluting in China. That money is hard to fight against politically, tempting politicans to choose easier paths.
By the way, there is at least one prominent climate scientist in this debate [wikipedia.org], who is railing against politicians like Gore for taking the easy path, and stating that the political influence of money is the largest problem in fighting global warming.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My initial response was based on a reflexive reaction to the word "denialist". Like most people, whenever I see the word I think of "Holocaust denialism"
Really? Most people? I think of climate denialists and evolution denialists. They are just so much more prevalent than holocaust deniers or AIDS denialists etc. these days.
I'm saddened and disappointed whenever supporters of the environment attempt to use the word to attack reasonable people that question whether, or to what degree, man effects the en
Re:Easier for denialists (Score:5, Insightful)
why is it when I point to localised evidence of cooling as proof AGW is bullshit, AGW supporters give me a line about global temps being the only valid data. but when there's some local event like ice melting on a mountain, it's considered rockhard evidence by AGW supporters?!
Because you are trying to use anecdote in place of data. These people place anecdotes in the context of data.
i'll tell you why. it's because most of popular climate change "science" isn't worth the paper it's printed on, and it's agenda is run by hypocrites.
No. It's because you suffer from cognitive dissonance, and any evidence that clashes with your current world view merely reinforces it. In other words, you are walking case example of neuroscience at work [wikipedia.org].
Re:Easier for denialists (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Easier for denialists (Score:5, Informative)
No. It's because you suffer from cognitive dissonance, and any evidence that clashes with your current world view merely reinforces it. In other words, you are walking case example of neuroscience at work [wikipedia.org].
Hi I'm the Cognitive Dissonance Troll. I'm here to point out that you are incorrectly using the phrase "Cognitive Dissonance"
Cognitive Dissonance does not mean that people reinforce their current world view because of conflict with a new evidence. What it does mean it that you feel discomfort because there is a clash between your current world view and the evidence the world presents. What a person does with that discomfort is not related to the dissonance, the dissonance is the discomfort.
Thank you for your time
Re:Easier for denialists (Score:4, Insightful)
Europe has just had the coldest winter in 50 years.
Followed by the hottest July on record for an insanely long time also...
I really wish people would stop thinking "Global Warming" simply means it gets warmer everywhere, evenly... it doesn't, never has, and never will.
if you can explain in a non emotional way sticking purely to the facts and data that i can look at myself, why CO2 has become the driver behind climate rather then the sun and water vapor, you'd convince me.
Simply that it's a bigger system surrounding a chaotic system* (that is, weather). Chaotic systems are a pain since we can't truly model them due to the insane complexity and number of factors. A tiny push from any thing can drastically alter it. The sun DOES affect the climate more than CO2. Water vapor DOES affect the climate more than CO2. But historical evidence points towards these things in their natural cycles causing warming and cooling over much longer time periods than what we're currently seeing. CO2 appears to be causing a very rapid change in the climate, kind of like the effect in a greenhouse (see where that old analogy comes from?)
* Note that I don't actually believe that there is anything too complex to model theoretically... practically certainly, but I doubt the climate of one planet even stretches that far given technology way ahead of our own.
Re:Easier for denialists (Score:5, Interesting)
Ice melt is one of the worst indicators imaginable of antropogenous warming. Glaciers, snow and ice are more influenced by the dust we produce than by temperature.
Up to as recent as the 80-es the industrialized countries have been producing immense amounts of soot from buring coal, diesel, etc.The developing nations (including India) are now the main polluters and they are producing more and more of it. I am not surprised that Asian glaciers are retreating. Considering the complete lack of pollution control in India and China I would be surprised if they were not.
Re:Easier for denialists (Score:5, Insightful)
I've always thought it was more hubris. It takes quite a bit of arrogance to believe that humanity can change the Earth's climate that much, that fast.
So your line of thinking is: Because it is arrogant to believe humanity can affect the Earth's climate, the climate data, statistics or the statistical models incorporating the data must be wrong. Have I got you right?
Cool, science just got so much easier, no more nasty maths to deal with for a start. You don't even need to consider the actual volume of the troposphere, the concentration of various gases it contains, their change over time, the volume of CO2 release by fossil fuel use or any of that crazy empirical evidence stuff. We can just run science on a sense of moral outrage and gut feeling. Yeah!
Re:Easier for denialists (Score:4, Insightful)
80's nuclear was so crappy even Margret Thatcher dropped it so hindsight doesn't help. 2010 nuclear has more prospects but still needs a lot of work.
Hubris? (Score:5, Insightful)
I really don't know the answer to how much of climate change is man-made. I tend to think that it's possible we have had some impact, but I can't say to what degree. However, I do have a few thoughts on the matter:
Even if our impact on climate is minimal to none, we certainly do have impact on our habitats and environments. Even if we aren't creating a greenhouse effect, I think it's a very good idea to pursue renewable resources and cleaner living so that we can prevent discomfort, health problems, and harming ecosystems (that again might have long term and indirect impacts on us all). I may doubt that a household can shit enough on their lawn in order to make it uninhabitable, but I think they can make it unpleasant and unhealthy.
You say that it is hubris to suggest we could have an impact on the environment. I say it is hubris to think that we are so smart that we won't screw things up by accident. Not only that, it's in contradiction to history. By accident (or unintentional side-effects), we have created acid rain, we have brought many species to the verge of extinction (without even including those that may be victims of climate change), we have caused diseases and birth defects, we have ruined ecosystems, and we have many small areas uninhabitable. You question whether all the industry and waste of the world in modern times combined could have a negative impact on our environment by accident, when single industrial facilities in one city have been proven to be able to greatly harm local environments by accident.
There may be a question of whether we are doing it, but I honestly do not think there is any question of whether we could. I guarantee we could (if we tried), and it's in the realm of possibility that we might without even trying.
Man has split the atom, left our planet and returned, and mapped code of life. We have imagined strange and amazing things, and then have proven them to exist millions of light years away. We are currently researching ways to not only build artificial intelligence, but even recreating the spark of life itself, and the most incredible thing is that we've gotten to the point that those possibilities don't even seem absurd anymore! Man has done great and terrible things. We will very likely continue to do so.
I don't think you give man enough credit in what we accomplish, or how badly we can botch things.
Re:Hubris? (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole "is global warming caused by man?" debate is a bit of a red herring IMHO.
Even if we didn't do it, it's happening. Even if it isn't happening, pollution and landfill are still major problems we have to solve. Oil is still going to run out.
This is a huge opportunity. People developing green forms of power generation, better recycling methods and more efficient devices stand to make a fortune selling them to the rest of the world. It also saves us money on petrol and waste disposal services (i.e. local taxes).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Even if we didn't do it, it's happening. Even if it isn't happening, pollution and landfill are still major problems we have to solve. Oil is still going to run out.
This is a huge opportunity. People developing green forms of power generation, better recycling methods and more efficient devices stand to make a fortune selling them to the rest of the world. It also saves us money on petrol and waste disposal services (i.e. local taxes).
hmmz well have a wee look at this, in general it's about recycling however at 21:45 it specifically goes on about lanfills. you might find it very interesting indeed.
seems from this that recycling, apart from tin, isn't the benefit most people think and is generally worse environmentally than making from scratch
Penn and Teller's Bullshit on recycling [veoh.com]
Lanfills also can be used, as seen here to help generate power from the gases in it. it gets tapped and voila.. a groovy source of electricity.
if i have
Re:Hubris? (Score:4, Insightful)
The above post may have a score of zero, but I think it brings up an interesting point (though I wouldn't have brought in the America vs China sentiment).
We live in a very disposable culture. Our goods (and even our entertainment) tend to be replaced constantly either due to lack of reliability, industries constantly pushing for cycles of obsolescence (either technological, or social) in various products, or even as an intentional feature of the product!
One of our problems is that stagnation, and conservation of resources are enemies to profit and capitalism. It's more profitable to make disposable goods, disposable entertainment, and disposable consumer electronics.
Conserving resources, making cheap and renewable energy, and making products that can last a lifetime are in direct opposition to the interest of businesses and could eventually lead to slowing down the economy in general.
People are talking about red herrings, and I think they are right. The real issue isn't even whether we are causing change, or whether the change even exists.
The real issue is how much money is it worth sacrificing in order to live in a sustainable and clean way. Really, that's what it's all about. Industries don't want to change because it cuts into profits, and conservatives don't want changes forced on them because they feel it takes away their rights (to make more profit).
I'm reminded of a line I vaguely recall from a Kurt Vonnegut novel, where he describes a future message left by an extinct mankind for any possible future alien visitors of Earth.
"Welcome to Earth. We could have saved it, but we were too damn cheap."
Re:Hubris? (Score:4, Insightful)
What we need to do is stop worrying about separating out things it's inherently stupid to recycle, like paper and glass, which we have essentially an limitless supplies of(1), and start separating out things we really shouldn't be putting in landfills, like batteries.
Fuck 'recycling'. Call me when I have they'll come to my house to pick up smoke detectors. That's the problem in landfills, not people who don't recycle their newspapers. I'm perfectly fine with drinking water that seeped through newspapers. Are you fine with drinking water that seeped through motor oil?
Work on getting the 5% of the landfill that is unsafe from getting put in the landfill, and maybe everyone else will stop caring so much about where landfills are built in the first place. As long as the only only requirement is 'far enough away we can't smell them', we've got plenty of room for them.
1) If someone figures out it's more profitable to recycle glass and paper than to make more, by all means, they should set up some sort of infrastructure to do so...but they shouldn't be asserting it's good 'for the environment' or having government help with it.
Re:Hubris? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not hubris, it is our second-law-of-thermodynamics destiny. It is why we exist.
The sun is busy doing it's thing, chucking heat out all over the universe, except for this one little annoying planet that is covered in plants and trees. The damn things keep capturing the carbon and eventually store it as fossil fuels, all that energy locked up and unable to escape.
The gods of thermodyanics want an earlier return on their investment, so we evolve to burn the fuel, chop down the trees and generally put back as entropy what was rightly universal entropy before those pesky trees got in the way.
Re:Easier for denialists (Score:5, Insightful)
"It takes quite a bit of arrogance to believe that humanity can change the Earth's climate that much, that fast."
Earth's surface: 510,072,000 Km^2
Earth's population: 6,856,832,000
Mean earth surface per inhabitant: 0,074 Km^2/habitant, or, to give it in "real international standards units", about 13,7 football fields.
Do you really think it takes too much arrogance to imagine that a single man can alter 13,7 football fields within his lifetime through farming, mining, driving, building, etc.?
Re:Easier for denialists (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you really think it takes too much arrogance to imagine that the variations in radiation from a superheated ball of gas at 5505C (9941F) might, just possibly, have some bearing on the situation ?
Oh, so that's what the climate scientists have been missing all this time! They forgot about the sun! Silly them! When is your schedule free, so we can give you your Nobel Prize?
Re:Easier for denialists (Score:5, Informative)
"It takes quite a bit of arrogance to believe that humanity can change the Earth's climate that much, that fast."
Earth's surface: 510,072,000 Km^2
Earth's population: 6,856,832,000
Mean earth surface per inhabitant: 0,074 Km^2/habitant, or, to give it in "real international standards units", about 13,7 football fields.
Do you really think it takes too much arrogance to imagine that a single man can alter 13,7 football fields within his lifetime through farming, mining, driving, building, etc.?
As opposed to the sun which has a surface area of 6088000000000 Km^2 ?
That's 887 Km^2/habitant, or 164,377 of your "real international standards units" (football fields).
Do you really think it takes too much arrogance to imagine that the variations in radiation from a superheated ball of gas at 5505C (9941F) might, just possibly, have some bearing on the situation ?
The sun may very well may have a bearing on the situation but you are not going to convince anybody that digging and pumping up billions of years worth of sequestered carbon over the last 60-70 years and releasing it into the atmosphere with wild abandon had no effect at all. But let's put the climate debate aside for a moment. He was talking pretty generally about the way that humans are affecting their environment. Facts like a drop in the wold tiger population from 100.000 at the beginning of the century to a mere 3000 today can hardly be blamed on the sun, there are huge areas of dead ocean where nothing survives in any numbers you can make a profit from catching and selling, the list goes on... Changes like that are undeniably due to human excesses, mismanagement, corruption, greed and very little else.
Re:Easier for denialists (Score:4, Insightful)
Most climate scientists agree that without the sun, the earth would be much colder.
It's arrogant of you to think that people in the know don't take the obvious into consideration. So yes, you're arrogant, and you're an idiot as well. How about trying to gain some knowledge about a subject before dismissing a theory out of hand.
Re:Easier for denialists (Score:4, Informative)
What IS unrealistic to to blame ONLY man to the exclusion of all other contributing factors, which is what the A in AGW and all the real debate is about.
Straw man weasel alert! No-one (NO-ONE) is saying that man is the only factor in climate change. You are pointing at the relatively small (natural) variation in climate that you could expect to occur over a couple of centuries and using it to spread FUD over the much larger anthropogenic variation.
Re:Easier for denialists (Score:4, Informative)
The phenomenon of warming caused by excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to humans burning fossil fuels was predicted by Arrhenius over 100 years ago [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"No, I don't think it's unrealistic. What IS unrealistic to to blame ONLY man to the exclusion of all other contributing factors, which is what the A in AGW and all the real debate is about."
I don't think anybody sane would deny there are other forces in the game since it's obvious the climate has changed, quite widely, in times when human activity can certainly be discounted.
Anyway this is not what I was arguing nor it is the position of those that want to give credit to the option that anthropogenic cause
Re:Easier for denialists (Score:5, Interesting)
The biggest problem with people who deny the massive amounts of evidence pointing towards a significant human effect on global warming tend to be those who are financially benefiting from the alleged destruction of our environment .
Out of 3,146 scientists surveyed as to if they believed human activity to be of significant contribution to the increase in global temperatures since the 1800's, 82 percent said they did. Interestingly out of the petroleum geologists asked in this survey (who's job is oil exploration) only 47 percent believed.
(source:http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html)
Re:Easier for denialists (Score:5, Insightful)
Please can we take the belief terminology and appeals to authority out of the debate? If you believe in global warming, then you are an idiot. If you believe in anything because the majority of scientists do, then you are an idiot.
There is a large body of (reviewable) evidence in support of various hypotheses under the global warming umbrella, and a lot of ad hominem attacks against it. That means that it's sensible to accept these hypotheses as provisionally valid and, until any contradictory evidence is presented, a reasonable base for policy decisions. It doesn't mean that you have to believe in any given hypothesis. If you're emotionally invested in a hypothesis, you aren't doing science, you're doing religion.
Sorry, my bad. (Score:5, Funny)
We needed something to put the kegs in to stay cold.
We needed something epic.
Photos from the same spot but not the same season (Score:5, Insightful)
So we have a few photographs and the conclusion that the ice loss is devastating--despite no investigation as to whether the photographs were taken during the same day of the year nor as to what the internal variability is. But still, the editors immediately jump to the ice loss is devastating and that the mid-century prediction of the AR4 is right after all.
Nonsense, the glaciers are monitored very closely and the loss-rates are calculated to be very slow. The AR4 prediction was, of course, the center of a big scandal because it was basically a fabrication, whereas the actual science is deep and gives several hundred years.
Re:Photos from the same spot but not the same seas (Score:5, Insightful)
We have a lot more than a few photographs supporting this. The worldwide retreat of glaciers [wikipedia.org] is well established and is know to acutely affect the Himalayas, potentially threatening water supplies for millions of people.
Also, can you provide some sort of reference for your claim that the photos were taken in different seasons? I find this unlikely, since the regularity of the Monsoon storms and lengthy acclimatization process tend to force Everest climbers to focus their efforts during the same season each year. There are exceptions, but it is unlikely that Breashears would have intentionally chosen to retrace the old expeditions steps for documentary purposes off season.
Finally, why focus on the erroneous report, when the correct prediction suggests dire consequences for millions of people who rely on the rivers fed by those glaciers. "Several hundred years" might seem like a long time, but it is a geological blink of an eye. We should be very concerned.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You remind me about the story on slashdot a little while ago http://idle.slashdot.org/story/10/07/14/1235220/Given-Truth-the-Misinformed-Believe-Lies-More [slashdot.org]
Clearly no amount of information will ever convince those who look at climate change as an "Us against Them" subject (it's all tribalism for them, logic has no bearing) instead of approaching it as a social/economic risk-cost analysis.
Re:Photos from the same spot but not the same seas (Score:5, Informative)
To visually compare the images properly, the color image needs to be turned into grayscale, and the two images need to be cut so that they can be properly superimposed. When this is done, the loss is a bit less impressive, but still noticeable in the valley if not on the mountains.
Re:Photos from the same spot but not the same seas (Score:4, Interesting)
However, comparing the prominent S-curves in the foreground reveals a significant difference in perspective/foreshortening that makes it clear that the color photo is taken from a higher elevation. The distant shapes seem to match pretty well so I don't think it's an aspect-ratio fuck-up, although that would be all too common in this modern world where nobody seems able to notice that effect either.
Re:Didn't even check if evidence existed (Score:5, Insightful)
Does the errors about glaciers ice loss question the existence of climate change ? No. Was this ever considered ? Hell yes. Actually, when one reads the actual IPCC report, you would see that it is far from alarming. I used to be a "soft denier" when I discovered that much of my claims were already there. The rise is small and slow, the link to human activity is credible but a lot of uncertainty factors are underlined, the rise being a long term natural cycle is not ruled out, etc...
The warming is not an invention. First measures apparently were a bit too high and over-estimated the rise. They have been corrected since and a rise is still present. I pity climatologists. They are trying to do good science in a very heavy political context. That must be very hard.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Just to be sure you're not a crank: could you explain to us what "Mike's Nature trick" was, what was in "decline" and how it was hidden? I mean, you're not just regurgitating memes from denialist blogs, right? You do actually know what you're talking about, right?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Before the climate gate emails were released I had heard of the "hockey stick" but I didn't look into it because I thought it was probably just anti-science oil company propaganda. But after hearing about the trick to "hide the decline", I looked into it more. Climate scientists wanted to get rid of the medieval warm period because if temps were just as warm in the recent past, then there couldn't be much worry about today. So they found some tree rings that showed temps were cool back in the medieval warm
Re:Didn't even check if evidence existed (Score:5, Informative)
The medieval warm period happened in northern Europe. At a global level there was no "medieval warm period".
Here's the pesky facts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period#By_world_region [wikipedia.org]
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/werent-temperatures-warmer-during-the-medieval-warm-period-than-they-are-today/ [realclimate.org]
Sorry for bursting your cozy little bubble.
Re:Didn't even check if evidence existed (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the interesting things about the medieval warm period (even if it was localized to Europe and the North Atlantic) and the little ice age (which the concensus agrees was global) that followed is that storms in the North Atlantic were more mild during the warm period and more violent during the little ice age which followed, which is exactly the opposite of what the AGW Alarmists tell us should be the case.
This makes sense (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well... If it melts at an alarming rate, should they not have had MORE water to drive those powerplants with? This proves nothing! If it proves anything at all, it is that there is less melting going on...
Get it right, damn it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Since it's inevitable that this will devolve into a bunch of AGW/anti-AGW trolling, let's get our facts straight.
No one with any knowledge about the subject is disputing that climates change. The disputed points are that human-produced carbon dioxide is or is not a significant factor, that Al Gore does or does not have any clue what he's blabbing about, and that the green movement does or does not constitute anything more than lies and snake oil.
Anthropogenic or not, climate change is a serious issue which affects the future of our species. The people who support (or object to) AGW by chanting an entrenched position over and over, and the people selling us snake oil as a "fix" are NOT helping. In fact, they're probably selling the future of humanity off in order to make a quick buck off of people who get their science from Twitter and Fox News.
Slinging around words like "denialist" doesn't help a damn thing either. Have we forgotten Godwin's Law so quickly?
With that said, the "before and after" photo trick is extremely passe. It is good for gulling the public, but little more since you only have two data points and are doing absolutely nothing to control for any of numerous confounding factors. It doesn't tell you crap about local conditions (pollution? construction? traffic? did someone just set off dynamite as an anti-avalanche measure?). It doesn't tell you about shorter-term cycles of climate variation (what's normal? was it unusually heavy in the "before" photo? was there more or less pollution historically? what about solar cycles?). It doesn't tell you about the cause of the climate trend if any exists, and it absolutely does not tell you a single bloody thing about the global situation.
Nor is this "incontrovertible" proof all that clear. The saturation in the 1921 photo is such that it is very hard to compare the two photos directly; you would need to analyze each in detail including examining the depth in a given area, the seasonal and longer-term variations, the characteristics of the camera and film used in either photo...the list goes on. The "experts say" line is a bullshit maneuver pulled by journalists in order to make their craptastic statements of absolute truth seem like they have some authority behind them - in reality, it usually means that the journalist is aware that they don't have the means to back up what they're claiming. Three huzzahs for the terrible state of science journalism, eh? FUD and misinformation and more FUD is all you can expect.
Re:Get it right, damn it. (Score:4, Informative)
Before you yell "get it right" to others, and then ramble on about "just two data points", how about reading TFA ?
oh, look:
He has not only followed in the footsteps of Mallory but also those of Italian photographer Vittorio Sella, whose work spanned the 19th and 20th Centuries.
The result is a then-and-now series of photographs from Tibet, Nepal and near K2 in Pakistan - all of which show glaciers in retreat.
It appears that there are lots more than just two data points. It's just the /. summary and maybe limited space or journalistic choice at the BBC that made them pick out only one specific picture set to show.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
[...]No one with any knowledge about the subject is disputing that climates change. The disputed points are that human-produced carbon dioxide is or is not a significant factor[...]
At the risk of writing the asshat post of the month here, I'd say that these news about the Everest are very significant for the politics of this climate change matter: if the governments of that region (representing more than 2 000 000 000 people) assume that it is the human factor that is causing the climate change that is depleting their drinking water resources, their position at the negotiating table with the other governments is likely to change.
As an exercise of rhetoric, it is all very fine and dand
Global warming and you. (Score:4, Interesting)
Sigh. When the global warming people are able to explain just a couple of minor details, then and only then will I believe them. Here are a few little facts that tend to be conveniently omitted when global warming is mentioned.
1. Yes, there is a definite positive correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures. Using ice core samples, tree growth rings, etc., this has been confirmed. But the fly in the ointment is that the CO2 levels *lag* the temperature changes by 40 to 50 years. Excuse me? The "cause" of the global warming happens "after" things warm up? That little datum all by its lonesome is rather hard to dispute.
2. The major greenhouse gas in our atmosphere isn't CO2. It's H2O. Yup, plain old water. The effect of the CO2 is about 1 percent of the overall greenhouse effect. And of that 1%, mankind is contributing a much smaller percentage.
3. There seems to be some viking farms being uncovered in Greenland. Yup, the glaciers are melting and in the process exposing abandoned farms. Hmm. Seems to me that if there were farms where there's currently glaciers, that would imply it being much warmer in the past.
4. And finally, the polar ice on Mars seems to be also shrinking. Guess those probes we've sent there have had a massive effect on Mar's temperature as well.
Seems to me that the global warming crowd have a bit of a secondary agenda running that has nothing what so ever to do with actual global warming. When the above independently verifiable but inconvenient little facts are explained, then I will consider the GW crowd to have done due diligence and be worth listening to. But until then, it's a transparent attempted power grab and quite frankly they can take their propaganda and stuff it into the nearest fireplace. Should make 'em quite happy since paper is carbon neutral and no fossil fuels would be used.
Re:Global warming and you. (Score:4, Informative)
You would like to think that they get omitted, but your questions have been addressed.
1. But the fly in the ointment is that the CO2 levels *lag* the temperature changes by 40 to 50 years.
This has been answered [grist.org].
2. The major greenhouse gas in our atmosphere isn't CO2. It's H2O.
This has been answered too [grist.org].
3. There seems to be some viking farms being uncovered in Greenland.
They have covered this one as well [grist.org].
4. And finally, the polar ice on Mars seems to be also shrinking.
Wouldn't you know it, they forgot to omit this question [grist.org].
Seems to me that the global warming crowd have a bit of a secondary agenda running that has nothing what so ever to do with actual global warming.
That's right, because the big companies behind the denialist movement couldn't have any agenda!
When the above independently verifiable but inconvenient little facts are explained, then I will consider the GW crowd to have done due diligence and be worth listening to.
So will you change your opinion now, or just ignore all this and move on to other pesky facts that the so called "warmers" have allegedly failed to mention.
Re: (Score:3)
No, you are completely missing the point.
Yes, CO2 increases as a function of temperature.
So in the past, without CO2 being
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is a standard list of objections, all of which are addressed by every "top ten climate myths" list every science magazine has ever published.
For example, here's the New Scientist (the UK equivalent of Scientific American) list:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html [newscientist.com]
It answers all your points (I think) and several others as well.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, there is a definite positive correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures. Using ice core samples, tree growth rings, etc., this has been confirmed. But the fly in the ointment is that the CO2 levels *lag* the temperature changes by 40 to 50 years. Excuse me? The "cause" of the global warming happens "after" things warm up? That little datum all by its lonesome is rather hard to dispute.
The whole reason why GW is perceived as so dangerous is that it is a positive feedback loop - warming up means more CO2 means more warming up. Historically, some other reason for warming (e.g. Sun) would also trigger that cycle, so no surprise there.
The major greenhouse gas in our atmosphere isn't CO2. It's H2O. Yup, plain old water. The effect of the CO2 is about 1 percent of the overall greenhouse effect.
H2O is in equilibrium - if you add more to the atmosphere, the excess will fall out as precipitation. But if you add more CO2 to the atmosphere, it stays there. We don't care about the part that cannot change no matter what happens, it's just "always there" (sim
The present rate never just continues (Score:3, Insightful)
Gotta love the cherry picking here. Take two arbitrary end points, get a downward slope, and then simplistically extend that slope forever. Never mind that another two end points would provide an upwards slope and reverse the prediction. Never mind that the system behaves in a demonstrably non-linear manner.
This is like saying the temperature from July to December decreased 20 degrees, and if that rate continued, we'll be at -200C in another ten years. I call BS on the church of global warming.
The Ground Realities (Score:5, Informative)
Since I live very close to himalayas, I can say with confidence, that things have changed quite a bit.
Is it global warming/regional warming or no warming, I dunno.
But over the past 6-7 years these changes have forced farmers to change crop cycles, modified travel plans of seasonal roads, etc., etc.,
Basically, in the Western himalayas, around November, snowfalls would start, seasonal roads would close by december, and jan feb were heavy snowfall months, with some in April and may.
Now from past few years, there is hardly any snow during December and even January, which leads to lousy apple crop.
Then in feb, it snows some, and in April may and june, well heavy snowfall in higher reaches.
This kills the standing crop.
The entire north India reels under heat wave as there is hardly any winter rain. We start getting summer in feb instead of April.
The mountains start getting snow.
So is it warming or cooling. No idea, but its a big change from what has been happening since 1900 or so(when record keeping started).
Winter rain, at the correct time, and winter snow at correct time is very important for healthy crops. all this cycle change has led to big problems.
To add to that, monsoon summer rain has also reduced. Thankfully, this year, though a bit late, monsoon is mostly adequate, but then here also instead of sustained rain over few days, most places get a cloudburst like havoc creating spell, and then its humid and dry. The dams will get filled up, but areas depending only on rain will suffer.
Such rains also lead to big landslides.
Part of the blame is on local deforestation, and micro climate change in the Himalayan region due to rapid commercialization and deforestation. Since protecting the environment is not yet a major election issue, its just a lip service on world environment day, when we switch of lights for an hour(and then get the routine 10 hour power cut due to overload of AC).
So all in all, pics or no pics, the local weather in western himalayas has changed. Hopefully, this weather pattern will stabilize, and farmers will switch there crop sowing times. But since its still too erratic, its a big problem.
As for global warming, when I see the temperature records for the region since 1900, the average temp has been rising steadily in most places, but whether this warming is caused by humans or not, I dunno. I am not a climatologist and like many people here, I will refrain from posting my theories on the changes.
All that matters to many, is that its getting hotter and drier, and rainfall patterns are shifting alarmingly.
Many glaciers in central himalayas are indeed receding, and its a fact. Not that they are warmer now, but because from past few years, there has been little winter snow in these areas.
The ski slopes of Auli, which used to be snowed out in winters, now are devoid of snow many times. Last year Auli did not get a snow season.
This year in June higher reaches of himachal got a few feet of snow. Not unusual, but definitely unusual in the peak of summer!
So the weather is changing, but who is changing it I dunno. I hope it can be fixed, because it causing a lot of food supply problems. Fruits are out of reach of many, and if this continues, even cereals will become precious.
Snow cover (Score:3, Informative)
500 replies and no mention of 'Sublimation' (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem is everyone sees ice loss, and assumes melt. It's not melt, it is sublimation.
Sublimation - when solid goes directly to gas is to blame. This is like water ice on Mars evaporating (not melting) into the martian atmosphere. Here on Earth the increased sublimation is caused by land use changes. What was once moist forest at the feet of the mountains, has become drier farm land. This drier air then travels over the mountain and picks up moisture directly from the ice.
How else can you explain ice loss at below-freezing temperatures? You can't just say the "ice melted" unless you show that it is warmer at the peak. These pictures are proof that man is modifying the environment, but only locally, and has nothing to do with temperature.
Re:I am not scared (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me ask something slightly different. Is bacteria actually capable of changing the properties of something as huge as man? Oh wait, thats very different, my bad!
More than that, bacteria changed the Earth itself (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, since the crazies posting here think the Earth was sneezed out by the Argleblaster six thousand years ago, there is no arguing with them.
It seems to me that the more scientists learn about the Earth and our place in the Universe, the more the religious fundamentalists disbelieve them. Galileo is bloody lucky he didn't live in Alabama in the 21st century.
Re:I am not scared (Score:5, Insightful)
Not scared? Maybe you should be.
According to our models, yes we are so capable. Don't just use your intuitions - "common sense" is often wrong. There are people who study these things - go to your local university and ask professors with knowledge in the relevant fields.
If we damage the environment, we *are* causing misery of mankind.
Re:I am not scared (Score:4, Insightful)
From the article it sounds as if the issue in questions is water supply and how changing the normal rate of glacial melt could change how people live. If THAT is the issue then it may suck, change usually does, but people need to just deal with it. We can't coddle societies that don't want to put in place infrastructure they need for security and stability.
The US is bad enough about it's own infrastructure, due largely to our parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents not paying their fair share and we'll soon be in trouble if we don't cough up the money to repair and upgrade it. There is no reason others shouldn't have to do the same. Or don't and be at the mercy of whatever happens.
Re:I am not scared (Score:5, Interesting)
> From the article it sounds as if the issue in questions is water supply and how changing the normal rate of glacial melt could change how people live.
They may be able to fix that:
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/4932332-indian-engineer-builds-glaciers-to-fight-climate-change [allvoices.com]
Quote: As of this year he has built 10 artificial glaciers, using a simple system of pipes and stone dams to pool and direct streams of water into heavily shaded parts of valleys above a given village. During winter the pools become thick ice masses - frozen water tanks for farmers who need reliable summer flows as a hedge against changing weather patterns.
Some people have done glacier growing for a long time:
http://www.umb.no/statisk/noragric/publications/master/2007_ingvar_tveiten.pdf [www.umb.no]
Quote:
People in the districts of Baltistan and Gilgit practice 'glacier growing' with the intention of
making glaciers that will enhance water availability. This is done by carrying glacier ice from
a naturally occurring glacier up to elevations over 4000 m a.s.l., where it is placed in a dug
out cave in a scree-slope. Apart from the ice, gourds containing water are also added to
interior of the cave. Then a layer of charcoal, and sawdust or wheat husks is put on top of the
ice. The workers close off the cave by piling up rocks to cover the entrance.
Lastly, by growing many glaciers, you can affect the albedo of a mountain, or even a mountainous region and thus affect local climate. Darker mountains absorb more heat and thus lose ice faster, reverse that by making more glaciers and other glaciers could appear without you having to make them directly.
Re:Yes, you can trust me, I'm a professor (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Yes, you can trust me, I'm a professor (Score:4, Insightful)
Please explain the mechanism. How could a research grant affect the outcome of the research? Do you have any concrete examples.
Or are you merely trying to smear the honesty of all reseach scientists for narrow, short-sighted political reasons?
Re:I am not scared (Score:5, Interesting)
Please define the difference between "environmental change", and "environmental damage". Do you believe that the current environmental "stasis" (however incredibly brief it is, by any measure of geologic time) is somehow "good" and any deviation from this stasis is "bad"?
Do you believe that climate is static, consistent and invariable? (There are mountains of data to refute this).
Do you believe that changes in climate are inherently "bad"? Do you believe that it is possible to differentiate between man-made climatic shifts and naturally occurring climatic shifts? How? Do you believe that a man-made influence on the environment is "worse" than a naturally occurring climatic shift? Why?
Do you subscribe the puritanical view of causation whereby actions and causations which are man-made, are by definition 'evil'?
Re:I am not scared (Score:5, Insightful)
Could humans make an impact, yes. The CO2 increase since the start of the industrial revolution shows that.
Is that the main cause of climate change? That is what the real arguments are about.
If Humans are to blame is it too late to do anything? Don't know, don't care. Its been done.
Humanity will need to adapt to climate change or it'll die out, just like everything else on the planet.
Re:I am not scared (Score:4, Informative)
And most (but not all) of the stuff that affects climate happens in the troposphere (bottom 5km).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
After I hit submit I found a site that made a really easy analogy.
If the Earth was the size of an apple (the fruit) the atmosphere would have the same thickness as the peel at that scale.
That really puts it into a perspective people can wrap their head around with a bit less effort.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Is that the main cause of climate change? That is what the real arguments are about.
There is no real argument among the people who are actually professionals in that particular field. The only arguments I hear are from the aggressively ignorant who claim that anything that is not in the Bible isn't real, and therefore is anti-American. Even claiming that "we don't know" is a lie perpetrated by these wackos.
The unfortunate part of all this is, it IS too late to stop it. WAY too late. The ending of Al Gore's
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
is man actually capable of changing the properties of something as huge as planet Earth?
Or, in other words, can we stop this even if we want to?
These two questions are not equivalent. Can nearly 6.9 Billion humans change the planet? Of course. Can the behavior of all these humans be coordinated and changed in order to create a specific desired outcome? Not all of them, no. Maybe you can get your desired results anyway, but it depends on how many people you need working for it, and how few people would be needed to sabatoge that effort.
If you ever get 6.9 Billion people to agree on anything you'll have solved much tougher problems than mere warming.
Re:I am not scared (Score:5, Interesting)
Conspiracy theories and scientific hypes aside, is man actually capable of changing the properties of something as huge as planet Earth?
Or, in other words, can we stop this even if we want to? Earth will continue changing as it will continue rotating, and we might as well take our minds off what we cannot change and work a little bit more on what we can, i.e. the misery of mankind.
You say that like you're thinking of "one man" affecting an entire planet.
Think of it this way, the surface area of the planet is 5.1x10E8 km^2, but there are 6.75 billion people alive today.
The real question is, can "one man" have an impact on their own personal share of 0.07556 km^2? That's only 7.6 hectares per person, of which only 2.2 hectares is 'land', which includes mountains, desert, and ice. This leaves about 1 hectare of productive land for each human being.
So the better question to ask is:
Are men capable of changing the properties of something as huge as 1 hectare each?
I'd say: YES
It's not about saving the planet (Score:4, Insightful)
You are missing the point. This is not about saving the planet, it's about saving our own asses. Yes, the planet will continue rotating, and will still be here long after we're all dead. But, uh, we won't be here unless we make sure that the planet continues to be able to sustain human life.
The idea that we can't change our planet is defeatist bullshit. In the 80s, people thought that overpopulation would cause major world wars within a decade, that we would have revolutions in Europe, and that billions of people would die. It didn't happen. Why? Because of science. We managed to improve resource usage so much that we were able to sustain ever growing populations (and now we're seeing that at some point, human population stop growing naturally in developed nations without being constrained by a lack of resources, so there's a good chance that we might eventually reach a balance that doesn't involve billions of people dying due to a lack of resources).
Humanity is capable of doing awesome, great things, and there is no reason to believe that we can't solve this problem, if we accept that it is a problem and start actually taking it seriously before it is truly too late.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
is man actually capable of changing the properties of something as huge as planet Earth?
man? no.
But men - yes. Your intuition fails at the huge dimensions involved here, because it evolved to deal with the small immediate surroundings of you and your tribe on the plains of africa.
We are talking about 7 billion people, eating, shitting in the woods, making fire to cook their food, and - increasingly many of them - driving cars, flying planes, burning fuel to generate electricity and so on. Wolfram Alpha computes we use 86 million barrels of oil every day [wolframalpha.com].
Unless you can create a picture in your
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
86M barrels per day corresponds to ~158 m^3/s.
This is equivalent to the average discharge of a middlish river. The Shannon, for example, has a discharge of 186 m^3/s. The Potomac has ~300m^3/s on average. The River Thames is only ~65m^3/s.
So, stand on the London bridge and have a look below. The total usage of oil in the world is twice that, every single second.
Re:The Newest Wave of Warmist Alarm (Score:5, Insightful)
Furthermore just as with most other Warmist alarm-filled propaganda, they give no hard data
As opposed to the climate change deniers who release 900 page reports reviewed by the elite of the world scientific community with only 1 or 2 mistakes in them ?
Hmm, actually, no. Its the "Warmists" who are releasing the hard data, its the deniers who are a lunatic propaganda followers with a "Flat earth society" culture.
Get a grip
Re:Wake me when that happens (Score:5, Insightful)
since you, the warmist, just mistook the deniers for the warmists...
Whoosh....
"That report" had a handful of factual errors in the WG2 section, dealing with the likely consequences of climate change, but no mistakes at all have been identified in the crucial WG1 section, where the veracity of anthropogenic global warming is firmly established. This despite it being one of the most closely-examined scientific reports of our time.
You are treating end results as fact without letting other scientists check your work.
Much of the WG1 data is in fact publicly available. I don't see any systematic analysis papers by reputable scientists challenging WG1's conclusions, only bloggers with an agenda presenting cherry-picked numbers and anecdotes as if they were somehow expecting to be taken seriously. Strangely enough, the thousands of climatologists who have systematically analysed climate data from a variety of unrelated sources and published their findings in peer-reviewed journals almost universally agree with WG1's conclusions. So on which side of the debate is the science fail, exactly?
Not sure why I'm bothering to respond, since your flamebait was modded as such early on this time. You did better when your rants were subjective opinions; it's not working out for you so well since you tried challenging the scientific conclusions of the nearly all the relevant experts on the planet.
Re:And what season were these taken? (Score:4, Insightful)
Glaciers are not snowfields, they show almost no seasonal change
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The difference, of course, is that glaciers are much more stable, even on geological timescale. It's not something that can reasonably be compared to a pile of snow in your backyard.