Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

World's Largest Tropical Glacier Vanishing

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the no-rest-for-the-chilly dept.

Science 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.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The real reason it's vanishing (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18064092)

It makes great margaritas.

Re:The real reason it's vanishing (-1, Troll)

asCii88 (1017788) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064502)

How come there are people like you who laugh at everything? Are you boludo? Don't you realise it's not something you should be laughing about?

I don't get it, is this a "troll" article? (1)

TheSpoogeAwards (589343) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064094)

Is Zonk one of these "trolls" I've been hearing about?

When will the denials stop? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18064108)

Every time it's proven that global warming is happening, we have people who insist that it isn't. We're not even at the point where we're trying to determine whether or not humans are responsible.

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? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18064158)

There is no global warming. And even if there were, there's no proof humans are causing it. The liberal press is full of wingnuts. And besides, it doesn't matter because we're all going to heaven soon, except for the heathens. And I know for a fact that the earth is flat and has been since god created it 6000 years ago. And SCO will win its lawsuit against IBM. Because god told me so. I can prove Intelligent Design is true, because I am a shining example of it. By the way, I have a new job next week. I will be the SysAdmin at your company.

Re:When will the denials stop? (0, Offtopic)

renegadesx (977007) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064370)

Show yourself you Anonymous Coward so God can smite you, he did not create the earth 6000 years ago, it was 5993 years ago!!!

Re:When will the denials stop? (1)

Travoltus (110240) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064448)

No, it was 6007 years ago!

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!

God's plan: (1)

FMota91 (1050752) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064450)

1) Melt Tropical Glaciers.
2) ???
3) Profit!

Re:When will the denials stop? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18064182)

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.

Oh there's no doubt there are some observed temperature fluctuations observed in some parts of the world. Some parts getting warmer, some colder (see the extra snow falling in antarctica and the recent ice storms across the US for a counter to the 'warming' in other parts of the world)

What people like me are annoyed at is that every temperature change, up OR down is given as evidence of warming. I tell you, if my refrigerator started to freeze the lettuce I keep in the crisper, I wouldn't say it's 'warming' as a whole at all.

There is still NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that the temperature changes we're seeing nowadays aren't part of some long term cyclical effect that we haven't yet been able to detect, whether it's a weather/climate phenomenon or the sun's own cycles. Remember Mars is warming too, and there are layers of fossils at the north pole that have dropped from melting ice many hundreds of thousands of years in the past, when the poles completely melted free of ice during periods that go back way before the earliest ice core samples we've dug up existed.

We're like some hypothetical electrical animals who are panicking when the sine wave of a 110V AC current starts rising, worried that soon we're all going to die, when it's just been going up and down forever.

Re:When will the denials stop? (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064232)

Yeah right, there's just an evil cabal of climatologists out to fuck the oil culture. We should consume and shit out every drop of hydrocarbons we've got, because some brilliant guy on Slashdot, 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. Next you'll be telling us that the Earth is 6000 years old and life didn't evolve. I mean, scientists are just out to fuck us over, right?

Re:When will the denials stop? (1)

Ucklak (755284) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064294)

It's a known fact that the magnetic poles switch every so often. How do you know that the magnetic shift isn't the cause?

Re:When will the denials stop? (1)

Simon80 (874052) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064324)

Congratulations, you've single-handedly destroyed the entire case for global warming with that argument; utterly amazing!

Re:When will the denials stop? (1)

LynnwoodRooster (966895) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064398)

Actually it makes a LOT of sense... This recent article linking cosmic rays and global warming [sciencedaily.com] is the start. The Earth's magnetic field is what protects us from cosmic rays. As the magnetic field goes unstable and switches [nasa.gov] , more and more cosmic rays get through. Meaning warming.

Maybe the two are linked!

Re:When will the denials stop? (3, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064468)

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

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

Re:When will the denials stop? (1)

Simon80 (874052) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064472)

Yeah, but the parent didn't bother to articulate the argument instead of throwing around vague FUD. Now I have an opportunity to retort: you've given no evidence that our magnetic field is currently unstable.

Re:When will the denials stop? (2, Informative)

GaryPatterson (852699) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064366)

It's also a well-known fact that the death rate of polar bears has increased.

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:When will the denials stop? (1)

Climate Shill (1039098) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064256)

There is [...] NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER [...] that we haven't [...] been able to detect

Logic....hurting....brain....

Re:When will the denials stop? (3, Insightful)

anagama (611277) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064382)

Well, there is some ice core evidence that the current rapid rate of overall increases is unusual. Whether humans are the total cause or not is probably debatable, but in some ways irrelevant. Let's try an analogy:
  • Imagine it is high summer with a temp approaching 85 degrees F.
  • You are inside your house with the heat on, windows closed.
  • You are sweating, uncomfortable, and wish it would be cooler
If you're a pickup truck republican wingnut, you go turn on your AC to counter the heat and ignore the fact you are partly at fault for the uncomfortable environment in your house.

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

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

Re:When will the denials stop? (3, Insightful)

DeadChobi (740395) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064456)

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

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

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

Re:When will the denials stop? (4, Insightful)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064530)

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

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

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

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

Re:When will the denials stop? (0, Redundant)

Max Littlemore (1001285) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064198)

De Niles, both de Blue and de White Niles, will only stop after de big lake Victoria dries up, and it's gonna haf to get a bit warmer for dat. But dat is in Africa and dis is in Peru, Sout America. Mod de parent -1 Offtopic.

Re:When will the denials stop? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18064202)

the reason for disbelief isn't whether or not it is happening, It is over whether it is a short natural cycle that will cure itself in a matter of time or whether is it a long term cycle we need to do something about.

But when global warming is usualy presented to us, it is usualy presented as "humans are the cause" and we need to do something that sounds an awfull lot like "the liberal agenda a few years back" to fix it. Sadly, they were not claiming any relation to global warming when it was their agenda and is somehow now the cure for it.

Do you see where the disbelief is comming from here? Is it a real problem or something that will fix itself, Are some people attempting to use natural occurances to scare an agenda down our throats that we already rejected once? It has happened before. To some, the fix is nothing more then tossing a vigin into a volcano in hopes it won't erupt.

Re:When will the denials stop? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18064244)

the reason for disbelief isn't whether or not it is happening, It is over whether it is a short natural cycle that will cure itself in a matter of time or whether is it a long term cycle we need to do something about.

It doesn't matter if it's a long-term cycle or a short-term cycle. What matters is that it's happening, and it's really starting to affect us. For example, most people these days don't have more than a week or so worth of food stored up. So let's suppose the warming is just a short-term trend, lasting only a year. Even just one year of poor crop yields will send food prices through the roof. And as we saw in New Orleans so recently, even American civilization isn't as strong as we may think. The result will be major strife.

Re:When will the denials stop? (1)

Max Littlemore (1001285) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064322)

And as we saw in New Orleans so recently, even American civilization isn't as strong as we may think. The result will be major strife.

Well I saw a documentary about New Orleans that showed members of a family that drove from New York, I think, and managed to get members of their family out because they had an SUV. If they were driving a fucking Prius, they would have drowned. So if you pinko hippy liberals insist on destroying our God given freedom to drive our super sized asses around oversized vehicles, just cause you guys are sore at a Texan with oil connections for kicking that pervert Clinton out of the White House and restoring the church to it's rightful place ay the head of the state, the fuckin' country will fall apart.

If, on the other hand, we keep driving our big cars and spending big budgets on flying big planes to drop big bombs on countries with big oil and tiny defences to ensure supply, this country is destined for continued greatness!

It's so simple, it's obvious

Re:When will the denials stop? (1)

anagama (611277) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064428)

I don't mind you nutballs driving insanely big trucks anymore. You're paying me some killer dividends. I make 2x more in dividends from my fossil fuel stocks than I spend on energy (fuel and electricity combined). Keep driving, I'll keep collecting. ;-)

Re:When will the denials stop? (1)

got2liv4him (966133) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064454)

the church at it's rightful place... I guess it would be all right if he just used religion as a photo op (well, in my opinion he prob mostly is, but not quite as much as others) You guys crack me up so much!

Re:When will the denials stop? (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064474)

I saw a documentary about people eating your family alive to survive after a climate disaster made Bush's Katrina look like Monica Lewinsky.

Re:When will the denials stop? (3, Informative)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064408)

It doesn't matter if it's a long-term cycle or a short-term cycle. What matters is that it's happening, and it's really starting to affect us. For example, most people these days don't have more than a week or so worth of food stored up. So let's suppose the warming is just a short-term trend, lasting only a year. Even just one year of poor crop yields will send food prices through the roof. And as we saw in New Orleans so recently, even American civilization isn't as strong as we may think. The result will be major strife.
Well, There isn't even much there to worry about. First, we product too much food as it is. We are talking about using food as our gas and deisel we have so much of it. Second, we have government subsidies that artificialy inflate the price of food by paying farmers not to produce as much as they would like. so there is room for adjustment there. Third, when good land goes bad, Bad land will become good. err new pices of land will be able to support crops that wouldn't normaly. This wil offset some of it too. While there might be a problem, I doubt it will be that bad. Especialy if it is a cycle that will fix itself.

As for New Orleans and Katrina, There was a serious breakdown from the local government levels there. It isn't that we couldn't handle it, it was we couldn't follow protocal. The first thing that went wrong was when the storm shifted course, the call to evacuate was cancelled. Mos of those people shouldn't have even been there. The second thing that went wrong was the state government didn't folow protocal and request the help that the law says she needed to do untill after being reminded by an aid when a reporter asked why the national guard wasn't there yet. Then after the proper requests were sent to satisfythe law, half another day was waisted in fighting over who would command the reliefe effort. FEMA was supposed to do it but the govenor thought she could better spend the money on resources and stuff. Once that had passed, all the blame had been placed on FEMA and Mike Brown who told it like it was at the senate hearing when everyone tried to place the blame on him. But what really made the whole thing worse was that funds were allocated over the last two decades for maintinance and improvments to the levi system and they were diverted into bridge projects and cannals to industrial parks.

If you doubt this, just look at the surrounding areas that were hit just as hard. They were destroyed just as bad or worse then New Orleans but didn't recieve near as much attention because they had their shit together. Entire towns were gone after katrina hit. But from what I understand, New Orleans has suffered coruption and incompetence for quite a while now. And it is all the way up the state levels and possibly federal levels in the area too. Without any of this, the entire responce would have been different. And it has been different in other disasters when the people invovled knew what was going on.

Re:When will the denials stop? (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064480)

I'm just wondering when those people who are standing so steadfast against reality will admit that they've been wrong.


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.

Second Life (2, Funny)

realmolo (574068) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064114)

Second Life, the enormously popular Internet "virtual reality" world with over 60 zillion users, has PLENTY of tropical glaciers available. You can even build your own glacier, and earn REAL money selling the land to other Second Life players!

Also, it's great if you are a furry.

In Soviet Russia... (0, Offtopic)

TibbonZero (571809) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064122)

glaciers melt you.

Hmm, actually no... nothing melts.

Peru is not the only one in trouble (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18064132)

A number of himalaya glaciers are disappearing fast. Once they do, India and Western/Central China are in great danger. As it is, Gorges dam (and the 2 new hydroelectrics being planed) is mostly fed by Glaciers that may disappear in less than 50 years. Worse, this water is used for some of the most fertile land in both countries. That would leave both with far less capability to feed themselves. China will almost certainly pull a W approach and pick a fight with neighboring country with plenty of water. In general, there is only 1 country; Russia.

Re:Peru is not the only one in trouble (1)

phoenix.bam! (642635) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064330)

I've always wondered about this.
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 (4, Insightful)

knorthern knight (513660) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064434)

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

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

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

New Atlantis (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064494)

How many feet of sea level rise does the Himalayan glacial melt represent? We see stats about the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (5m) and Greenland (7m), but what about the Himalays? And what about the contribution from all the Andean glaciers, not just Peru's? Canada's got lots of land ice...

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18064138)

Bah, I don't believe in global warming. Scientific proofs won't change my faith.

When last we heard from here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18064140)

The last bit of news was that some 5,000 year old plants were uncovered due to the glacier melting.
Ah. So it was this warm or dry there 5,000 years ago.
What were you doing 5,000 years ago?

influx of mountain stream fresh water (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18064146)

...just got higher! And when the glacier is completely melted the rate will return to the same rate as when the glacier size was stable (= the rate at which rain/snow falls in the glacier region). So where is the problem?

Re:influx of mountain stream fresh water (3, Insightful)

nebosuke (1012041) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064196)

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

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

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

Re:influx of mountain stream fresh water (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064224)

couldn't they build a dam and/or create a lake to regulate the amount of water comming down?

Re:influx of mountain stream fresh water (1)

SEWilco (27983) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064348)

Dam! A solution!

NOT a problem for the water supply (1, Interesting)

Gorimek (61128) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064154)

It's hard to imagine how this would affect the "influx of mountain stream fresh water", other than temporarily increase it while the glacier is melting off.

The water isn't magically generated by the glacier, it comes from snow and rainfall in that area, which presumably will continue as before.

Re:NOT a problem for the water supply (5, Interesting)

callmetheraven (711291) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064212)

Yes, the total amount of runoff yearly will be the same, but if the glacier disappears, and there is no winter snow accumulation, there will be reduced runoff during warm dry months of summer, just like here in Montana. Winter snowpack accumulation/meltoff is crucial for year-round water supply in some climates.

Re:NOT a problem for the water supply (1)

Vermifax (3687) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064412)

Of course if the temp rises, more water will evaporate into the atmosphere as well.

Re:NOT a problem for the water supply (1)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064424)

Winter snowpack stores water for summer. If there isn't a deep freeze for the water, it comes out as devastating spring floods. Imagine the effect of tearing down a dam and draining the reservoir: same thing if you eliminate a frozen reservoir.

Re:NOT a problem for the water supply (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18064532)

It's the other way around. The winter freezing effect doesn't prevent spring floods, it causes them.

Global Warming (5, Funny)

Citizen of Earth (569446) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064174)

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

Re:Global Warming (1)

MarkRose (820682) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064282)

But shit! How will we keep the beer cold?

Re:Global Warming (1)

Anonymous McCartneyf (1037584) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064336)

Oh, that giant snowstorm starting to form over the Arctic should get your beer nice and frozen...

Re:Global Warming (1)

ip_freely_2000 (577249) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064396)

Amen, brother.

Most of the company has been way below normal since mid-January.

Global Warming: Bring it on.

Re:Global Warming (3, Insightful)

Kenshin (43036) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064440)

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

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

Re:Global Warming (2, Insightful)

Climate Shill (1039098) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064492)

On the subject of Global Warming, allow me to be the first Canadian to say YES, YES, AWESOME, FUCK YEAH!
Say, that's some nice climate you have there buddy ! And only a few hours tank drive away !

Worlds Freest Country Vanishing (-1, Troll)

argoff (142580) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064178)

Word has it that it is melting away under a nearly infinite number of microregulations on every aspect of free individual life in the name of potential environmental disaster 100 years out. Sadly while environmental disasters are mostly theory, government disasters are not and have a track record of 100's of millions murdered, and that doesn't even include war.

Re:Worlds Freest Country Vanishing (1)

marimbaman (194066) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064364)

Hey, evolution, gravity, and all the electrical engineering that make your computer run are also theories. The question is, is the evidence there or not, and is the danger sufficiently large compared to the probabilities to be cause for worry?

If the Earth's systems are disrupted by climate change to the extent that some scientists are expecting, "100's of millions murdered" may start seeming trivial compared to the combined effects of failed crops and erased land (Denmark, the southeast USA, England, ...) due to rising oceans and extreme weather.

Re:Worlds Freest Country Vanishing (1)

Climate Shill (1039098) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064390)

Could someone help me out here - are these people trolls, shills or tards ? Because it's quite hard to tell on Slashdot. I'm even beginning to wonder if it's the staff, trying to drum up pageviews.

OK, I got it now. It's so simple. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18064180)

So...the glaciers are melting because of solar heating....I mean...global warming. But if they melt, the things that depend on the water that comes from them melting will be in trouble. So we want them to not melt, so they can keep on melting.

Can't we just get the UN to make a law that the Sun's not allowed to be a variable star, because it's not fair to the third world?

Emerging from an ice age will have that effect (-1, Flamebait)

ElectricRook (264648) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064200)

We've know for the last 30 years, that were are emerging from a little ice age.

The temperature has changed ~1.2C in the last 200 years.

If you read the scholar.google.com papers, 1.1C is caused by increased solar activity. http://www.springerlink.com/content/r2n447034x15v0 87/ [springerlink.com]

0.1C is attributed to atmospheric CO2.

Human activity is responsible for 50% of CO2, the other 50% is volcanic sources.

That makes human activity culpable for about 0.05C in two hundred years.

Of course this paper attributes global warming to cosmic forces http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleUR L&_udi=B6TJK-471854M-3&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F31 %2F2003&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c& _acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid= 10&md5=4df335c97179a6aebe85bacebd0679fe [sciencedirect.com]

We've reached the technological ability to see the change, and like Chicken Little run around declaring the "the sky is falling".

"Change, it's the only thing that stays the same" --Levar Burton.

Re:Emerging from an ice age will have that effect (5, Insightful)

marimbaman (194066) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064276)

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

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

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

Re:Emerging from an ice age will have that effect (1)

night_flyer (453866) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064334)

Re:Emerging from an ice age will have that effect (1)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064418)

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.

Re:Emerging from an ice age will have that effect (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064524)

What are these options and how are we sure that these options won't make things worse if this is juat a trend that corrects itself?

Re:Emerging from an ice age will have that effect (1)

got2liv4him (966133) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064484)

I new it was big oils fault!!! Brilliant of them!

Re:Emerging from an ice age will have that effect (1)

GaryPatterson (852699) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064328)

Nice rebuttal of the science. Boy, those 95% of scientists who believe the evidence supporting global climate change makes the opposite case to the two papers you linked to will feel silly now.

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:Emerging from an ice age will have that effect (1)

LynnwoodRooster (966895) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064416)

Come back when you've got scientific consensus on your side.

This from the poster who states "95% of scientists who believe the evidence supporting global climate change"... I'll let consensus and 95% sink in...

Re:Emerging from an ice age will have that effect (1)

Climate Shill (1039098) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064466)

Human activity is responsible for 50% of CO2, the other 50% is volcanic sources.

Everyone knows this one already, right ? But just in case [usgs.gov] .

Re:Emerging from an ice age will have that effect (1)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064504)

We only have about 25 years of direct measurement of solar intensity from outside the atmosphere. Indirect reconstructions have not converged yet. That's why there's such a range of uncertainty about the contribution of solar changes to global temperature increases.

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 since 1750 are estimated to cause a radiative forcing of +0.12 [+0.06 to +0.30] W/m**-2"
[Notice the factor of 5 between the low and high estimate of solar changes].

But as usual you can simplify the whole question by looking at one key point. Why are nights getting warmer? Solar input affects daytime temperatures. The predicted effect of longwave absorption is that nights won't cool off as quickly. The observation is the same.

Should UN Ignore Asteroids For Tropical Glacier? (0, Troll)

chromozone (847904) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064214)

Another article for the hysteria bin. Also in the news today was a warning that the UN needs to "act now!" to be ready for an asteroid strike:

"Beginning in the next few months, Schweickart's group will host a series of meetings to provide the UN with a 'decision process' for assessing and acting on the hazard posed by Apophis and other near-Earth asteroids (NEAs). A draft document ready for consideration by the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space is expected by 2009."

http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn11207-aste roid-threat-demands-response-experts-warn.html [newscientist.com]

When do people see through this racket?

Re:Should UN Ignore Asteroids For Tropical Glacier (1)

hxnwix (652290) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064406)

Indeed, and there's also nuclear war and pandemics to worry about. What was your point?

News flash: Climate changes are constant... (1)

BarnabyWilde (948425) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064234)

...and not necessarily man-caused.

But you can join that crowd, if you like stampedes.

Moo....

What isn't being said? (-1, Troll)

Brandybuck (704397) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064236)

We know that some arctic glaciers are receding, because the media won't shut up about. But there are also glaciers nearby that are advancing instead of receding. That isn't being reported. Glacial growth is significantly dependent on local conditions, so you cannot use the fact that some glaciers are receding as proof of any global trend, without first knowing the state of ALL glaciers.

This is such an important scientific criteria that it needs repeating. Local conditions do not predict global trends. If you want to make global predictions you need a sufficiently large, objectively selected, sample of local conditions. Otherwise you might as well be telling anecdotes on Slashdot.

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.

Re:What isn't being said? (1)

Anonymous McCartneyf (1037584) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064306)

The report implies that the tropical glaciers are all receding. And there are probably fewer of them, so it ought to be easier to tell. But it could be wrong.
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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18064352)

Of course, I hear that there's a glacier advancing in New Zealand. Maybe it's tropical.

Have you ever been to NZ? The Tropic of Capricorn is a fair distance north from the country.

Re:What isn't being said? (1)

marimbaman (194066) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064312)

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.


The snow of Mount Kilimanjaro, for one, welcome our new global warming overlords. http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/kilicores.htm [osu.edu]

It's easy to bury your head in the sand and go "la la la it's just an anecdote!", but if you actually look around, you will find that the vast majority of glaciers, tropical or not, *are* retreating.

Re:What isn't being said? (4, Informative)

MarkRose (820682) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064316)

Wikipedia actually has an article full of data regarding exactly that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_s ince_1850 [wikipedia.org] . If you don't believe what's written in the article, check out the references. The global conclusions are quite clear.

Re:What isn't being said? (0)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064332)

I remember reading about a P-38 Lightning called "Glacier Girl" (WW2 fighter plane) that crash landed on a glacier in Greenland around 1942. What was interesting was that it was buried under 268 feet of ICE when found in 1988!!! That's a lot of ice to be formed in just 46 years!

Ya, I'd say glacial growth is very under estimated.

Re:What isn't being said? (1)

BluBrick (1924) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064522)

Seeing as the plane crash landed, there was probably a fire or two after impact. That would have been sufficient to melt a pretty deep puddle in the glacier. The plane then sinks into the puddle, the sub-arctic temperatures in Greenland re-freeze the water in short order and suddenly the plane is more deeply embedded in the ice than would be expected.

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.

Re:What isn't being said? (2, Insightful)

GaryPatterson (852699) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064344)

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

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

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

Re:What isn't being said? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18064392)

Simple google search yields the info you obviously can't be bothered to hunt down. http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glacier s.htm [iceagenow.com]

Re:What isn't being said? (1)

GaryPatterson (852699) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064438)

Hey - it's the responsibility of the original poster to put some evidence if they make a claim. Yes, I can't be bothered doing their part for them.

Re:What isn't being said? (1)

GaryPatterson (852699) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064482)

I wish I had checked that site before posting.

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:What isn't being said? (1, Offtopic)

hxnwix (652290) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064362)

"But there are also glaciers nearby that are advancing instead of receding. That isn't being reported." : "There are good things happening in Iraq; they just aren't being reported." :: bullshit : bullshit

Re:What isn't being said? (5, Informative)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064422)

But there are also glaciers nearby that are advancing instead of receding.

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.

Throughout the Tropics, glaciers are in retreat. Well-documented examples include Quelccaya [Thompson, et al. 1993], Huascaran [Byers, 2000; Kaser and Osmaston,2002], Zongo and Chacaltaya [Francou,et al 2003; Wagnon et al. 1999] in S. America; and the Lewis, Rwenzori and Kilimanjaro (more properly, Kibo) glaciers in East Africa [Hastenrath, 1984; Kaser and Osmaston, 2002]. There have been indications of widespread retreat of Himalayan glaciers, including Dasuopu in the subtropics, but a quantitative understanding of this region must await peer-reviewed analysis of the recently completed 46000-glacier Chinese Glacier Inventory.
In short, you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about.

What are you talking about? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18064462)

But there are also glaciers nearby that are advancing instead of receding. That isn't being reported.

Do you know why this isn't being reported by most media outlets? Because it's not actually happening! There are no studies nor published measurements supporting your claims.

You're not correct just because you heard Rush Limbaugh incorrectly say that there are advancing glaciers in some areas, a claim which anyone in the field of geology, geophysics or glaciology can easily prove incorrect.

The fact is, as this article clearly shows, that glaciers around the world are melting. We don't necessarily know why, but we know that they are. Likewise, we also know that other glaciers are not growing larger. Again, this is measured and documented fact. You'll just have to admit that you're wrong on this one.

Re:What isn't being said? (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064490)

So the question to ask is: How many tropical glaciers are advancing or staying the same instead of receding?

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.

PERU (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18064258)

VIVA EL PERU CARAJO

A Tropical Glacier *Vanishing*? Really? (1)

AtariEric (571910) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064264)

You're lucky they exist in the first place - it's like having a Sahara Catfish...

Anonymous cowards (4, Insightful)

alshithead (981606) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064284)

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

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

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

Re:Anonymous cowards (1)

Vermifax (3687) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064446)

"How can any educated person deny that we have seriously affected our world ecosystem? "

Because the majority agree that it is getting warmer, not that we did/are doing it.

also (1)

Vermifax (3687) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064458)

"Our actions seem to be causing changes that are mostly unpredictable."

Read what you just typed.

Re:Anonymous cowards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18064476)

I hate to add to the anonymous coward list of deniers, but I must.

1. Media and UN make global warming a dire problem, but it is FAR FROM UNANIMOUS.
2. The "proof" IPCC report was not 1000's of scientists, it was a few dozen politicians creating a "summary for policy makers" that was based on the full report (which will be modified to match the summary.)
3. Our impact is likely insignificant compared to fluctions in solar, stellar radiation, and natural cyclical changes.
4. If the Earth IS warming, WHY IS THAT BAD??? I think we are better off than the ice age, don't you?

To summarize: change is bad. If change is happening, it must be the big bad U.S.'s fault. The fix is to take lots of money from the largest most altruistic nation and funnel it to all of the third world countries.
I'm sure it is George Bush's fault that Apophis is going to hit us in 30ish years too.

Attitudes Towards Dissent (4, Insightful)

Shihar (153932) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064510)

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

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

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

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

Ohhh poor Peru (0, Flamebait)

Ethercircuit (1057996) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064300)

I was standing on the elevated train platform in Chicago a little while back when it was at least -10F every day for nearly two weeks wondering why I haven't heard anything from these global warming idiots in awhile. If it's too hot in Peru go sit under a tree. There's still no evidence to say that global warming is even taking place (warming and cooling trends over the past hundreds of years, sunspots?) or if it is taking place that it will ultimately have bad consequences. Meanwhile I'm paying $800 a month in gas bills to heat a 2BR apt. And I don't drive a huge gas guzzling SUV, I get 28mph Also, fuck (the) Ohio State. Thank you.

Re:Ohhh poor Peru (1)

hxnwix (652290) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064444)

No worries, your kids will have beach front property! And the displaced residents of New Jersey to share it with!

A bit odd (4, Informative)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064346)

This is odd on a couple counts. First, Lonnie Thompson has undoubtedly been aware for a couple decades that Quelccaya has been melting away (I used to work in a different university's ice core lab, and we used to collaborate with Lonnie). Second, based on both climate models and historical records I'm pretty sure that what we refer to as "global warming" shouldn't have a huge impact on tropical glaciers. During both glacial and interglacial periods the significant temperature changes were in subtropical and especially arctic areas - tropical areas saw very little change. What this means is: even if we'd never dumped tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, Quelccaya would still likely be melting away right now.

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.

Humans (1)

JPMaximilian (948958) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064378)

What if humans are the cause of Global Warming? Aren't we all a natural phenomena? After all, we're no different from other animals, right? It could be natural that humans destroy the balance of the planet.

OK, I don't really believe any of the above, but it makes me question people who think we're no better than animals, and yet claim that we still have a responsibility to protect the planet.

Re:Humans (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064430)

Honestly, she should only protect the planet for our own self interests.

To hell with "Mother Nature". That bitch has never been kind to the human race...or any form of life for that matter. She can take these genetic mutations and defects and shove it right up her ass. With all the pain and suffering they've provided...we all have a lot to be bitter about.

mod dOwn (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18064402)

(7000+1400+700)*4 Numbers continue 'Usenet. In 1995, moans and groans

mod" Down (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18064516)

*BSD but FreeBSD EXAMPLE, IF YOU (I always bring my dim. Due to the you're told. It's the project faces, to you by Penisbird fanatic known suuplies to private

South America says... (1)

pataloca (601979) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064520)

"My dear friend Condoleezza says I am destroying the Venezuelan economy," said Chavez, a fierce critic of U.S.-style capitalism. "Death to the empire! We will not be dominated. We have decided to be free!" Chavez also said Venezuela was unconcerned with plans by the Bush administration to become less dependent on crude oil from politically unfriendly nations. "If they do not want to buy it, say it, and I will not sell them oil," he said.

Global warming is so abused (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064528)

Every damn story about something melting, getting hotter, dying, etc. always has the subtext: "You lousy humans are THE cause." Guess what? If it's a problem, it won't be solved by diverting all talk of the subject to us lousy humans. Solving it first requires detached observation of what's happening, then detached ideas about the cause, then detached tests to see if changing the apparent causes changes the effect. And who knows, we might conclude that major change beyond our control is in the near future and that we must find ways to accommodate to a new climate.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?