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!

New Photos Show 'Devastating' Ice Loss On Everest

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the heatin'-up-the-whole-outdoors dept.

Earth 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."

cancel ×

895 comments

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

Easier for denialists (5, Funny)

colinrichardday (768814) | more than 4 years ago | (#32947630)

But won't this make it easier for AGW denialists to climb Everest?

Re:Easier for denialists (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32947650)

"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"?

Posting as AC, since YOU are trolling and I'm too drunk to login.

Re:Easier for denialists (0, Flamebait)

Rakshasa Taisab (244699) | more than 4 years ago | (#32947676)

Holocaust and AGW denialists are equally high on the nutcase ladder, the former merely have better financial support.

Re:Easier for denialists (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32947762)

I presume you mean latter?

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.

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.

Re:Easier for denialists (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32947832)

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 take the serious or catastrophic consequences of global warming, should they come to pass, thank you very much. 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.

Re:Easier for denialists (-1, Flamebait)

Uberbah (647458) | more than 4 years ago | (#32948050)

The only serious actions I know of

Then you don't know much.

Compared to that I'll take the serious or catastrophic consequences of global warming, should they come to pass, thank you very much.

Wow, didn't see that coming.

Re:Easier for denialists (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32947688)

No, denialist is right.

You might as well point to the objective, independent people that question whether the Holocaust occurred. Neither actually exist.

Re:Easier for denialists (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 4 years ago | (#32947708)

Posting as AC, since YOU are trolling and I'm too drunk to login.

If you are too drunk to login, then just who is trolling around here?

Re:Easier for denialists (0, Offtopic)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 4 years ago | (#32947730)

If he's too drunk to login, just how is it that his spelling and grammar are superior to most sober folks around here? Or that he could use caps properly for grammar and emphasis? Seriously. I don't think s/he's drunk. Just too lazy to login. :p

Re:Easier for denialists (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32947760)

Hello! I am the AC in question! :)

Quite simply, my friend, I am a drunkard. I have much practice typing while intoxicated.

Re:Easier for denialists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32947962)

Hello! I am the AC in question! :)

Quite simply, my friend, I am a drunkard. I have much practice typing while intoxicated.

another self-important AC who's going to have a headache in the morning

Re:Easier for denialists (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32947836)

Hello! I'm the drunk AC.

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" and the lunatic fringe that attempt to deny the horrible crime that happened to the Jewish people during WWII. 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 environment and the climate in general.

Not truly, simply annoyed. And drunk. ;D

Re:Easier for denialists (1)

colinrichardday (768814) | more than 4 years ago | (#32947744)

I wasn't trolling; I was saying that here is more evidence for Anthropogenic Global Warming denialists to evade.

Re:Easier for denialists (3, Informative)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 4 years ago | (#32947778)

the fact that you think this is actually evidence is all anti AGW people need to prove their point....

Re:Easier for denialists (0, Flamebait)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 4 years ago | (#32947894)

Let us say, just for the sake of argument, that the AGWers are correct. What do you expect us to do? Don't say "cap and trade" because it is a scam [youtube.com] that will kill the economy [wsj.com] while making billionaires [minnesotan...arming.com] out of those pushing it (surprise surprise) and the cost of converting just the USA to electric cars would probably break us, if the production could even be ramped up that high. Not to mention simple logic states that cars that run on massive batteries won't last for shit in places like the south, where the heat and humidity will kill them dead quickly.

So I'd love to hear a solution other than "line the pockets of Wall street leeches [goldmansachs.com] and Al Gore", because I honestly haven't heard anything else from the AGW camp. 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 see anything on the board that will cause any real change. After all China and India will tell you where to put your cap and trade, along with the rest of the third world, and the resulting shift as what remaining businesses jump overseas to avoid cap and trade will make outsourcing look pleasant by comparison. And with 2 wars and record deficits along with high unemployment is isn't like Americans could afford cap and trade anyway, unless you want the fed to just tack it onto our already insane debt.

So unless we come up with some magical McGuffin to fix it, I really don't see it making much of a difference. We simply don't have the money or resources to change our current direction ATM, and the last thing any politician will do right now is stick thousands more on the average Joe in electric and fuel bills in an economy that is starting to smell like death. So I'd really like to hear some real solutions, because cap and trade will be about as helpful as "too big to fail" was in the long run.

Re:Easier for denialists (2, Interesting)

colinrichardday (768814) | more than 4 years ago | (#32948004)

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 see anything on the board that will cause any real change.

And if we do nothing we may suffer that population loss anyway.

Re:Easier for denialists (5, Insightful)

Capsaicin (412918) | more than 4 years ago | (#32947876)

"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 (1, Informative)

PinkyGigglebrain (730753) | more than 4 years ago | (#32947658)

AGW.

What, who?

Please, if your using a TLA [wikipedia.org] add a link so those of us who are not into whatever it is your talking about can find out what the Fsck your talking about.

Thank you.

Re:Easier for denialists (4, Funny)

DWMorse (1816016) | more than 4 years ago | (#32947670)

A little mental parsing and I've come up with 'Alien Galactic Weasels.' I can see how being in denial about such things can be devastating to one's capacity to ascend mountain peaks.

Re:Easier for denialists (5, Funny)

zmollusc (763634) | more than 4 years ago | (#32947718)

I, for one,...

Re:Easier for denialists (4, Funny)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 4 years ago | (#32947698)

    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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32947720)

You lost me at "I believe"

Re:Easier for denialists (3, Informative)

colinrichardday (768814) | more than 4 years ago | (#32947724)

Anthropogenic Global Warming.

News Flash! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32947696)

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! (4, Funny)

Rakshasa Taisab (244699) | more than 4 years ago | (#32947722)

And we also know that temperatures are moving towards a climate singularity just like the technology singularity, changing at ever faster speeds due to natural causes.

Re:Easier for denialists (2, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 4 years ago | (#32947748)

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?!

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.

Re:Easier for denialists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32947834)

Drill, baby, drill!

Re:Easier for denialists (0)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 4 years ago | (#32947846)

it's agenda is run by hypocrites.

I've always thought it was more hubris. [wikipedia.org] It takes quite a bit of arrogance to believe that humanity can change the Earth's climate that much, that fast.

Re:Easier for denialists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32947866)

Yeah, or split the atom, or land on the moon.

Re:Easier for denialists (4, Insightful)

Capsaicin (412918) | more than 4 years ago | (#32948018)

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 (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32947858)

You have as much credibility as those who deny the fact of evolution.

Seriously dude. What's it like to be so arrogantly ignorant, and so gullible that you swallow the same bullshit from the same bullshit artists that brought you (literally funded by the same people) that cigarette smoking is healthy and doesn't cause cancer (from the 50's)?

The fact that tens of thousands of scientists the world over, across disciplines, examining independent data, all come to the same conclusion... you reject their findings as some sort of global, multi-national conspiracy of lies. Yet you belive hook, line, and sinker the conclusions of fossil-fuel-funded 'think tanks', and side with Glenn Beck on this issue? Really?

That's just sad and pathetic. And really not something you should be broadcasting.

Re:Easier for denialists (1, Insightful)

Vintermann (400722) | more than 4 years ago | (#32947888)

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.

What? No, not at all. If you show me a glacier has gained as much mass since 1921 as this one has lost, I'm paying attention, I promise. If it's just local variation, there should be plenty of them.

(Oh, don't try to pull the classic denialist trick of going for area instead of volume.)

Re:Easier for denialists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32947932)

If you show me a glacier has gained as much mass since 1921 as this one has lost.

No worries. We can photoshop these glacier snaps anyway you want. ;)

Re:Easier for denialists (5, Insightful)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 4 years ago | (#32947910)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32948010)

As your nick indicates, your brain is neutron-bombed. See if you can go get a brain transplant. Not necessary for yapping at slashdot, though.

Re:Easier for denialists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32948030)

Because you are trying to use anecdote in place of data. These people place anecdotes in the context of data.

Except when they delete the data in a trick to hide the decline.

Re:Easier for denialists (1)

Uberbah (647458) | more than 4 years ago | (#32948038)

Except when you deliberately ignore context to perpetuate a zombie lie.

first (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32947634)

this is my 40th first post.

Re:first (0, Offtopic)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 4 years ago | (#32947782)

this is my 40th first post.

And also your 40th waste of time - and in this case, 40th fail. Seriously, if you want to get first posts, log in, become a subscriber (they get to see the news stories about 10-30 minutes before everyone else) and you can post first to your hearts content.

You will get first posts, and as you subscribe, you get to also support the site the rest of us like to visit and read rather than waste time on squealing "first post... blah blah...". It's a win win scenario.

Sorry, my bad. (5, Funny)

DWMorse (1816016) | more than 4 years ago | (#32947642)

We needed something to put the kegs in to stay cold.

We needed something epic.

I am not scared (2, Insightful)

a_tharwat (1824580) | more than 4 years ago | (#32947646)

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.

Re:I am not scared (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32947660)

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!

Re:I am not scared (4, Insightful)

Improv (2467) | more than 4 years ago | (#32947682)

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 (3, Insightful)

MikeFM (12491) | more than 4 years ago | (#32947804)

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 (5, Interesting)

TheLink (130905) | more than 4 years ago | (#32947952)

> 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:I am not scared (1)

MikeFM (12491) | more than 4 years ago | (#32948022)

I wonder how doing this compares to implementing storage tanks and canals or pipes and such. Sounds like a lot of repetition of hard/boring work to me but it may have benefits that make it worth while.. causing other glaciers to naturally appear for example.

Re:Yes, you can trust me, I'm a professor (3, Interesting)

Just_Say_Duhhh (1318603) | more than 4 years ago | (#32947810)

Yes, there are people who study these things, and who get research grants to do so. Grants that in NO WAY influence the conclusions of such research? Reducing use of fossil fuels is a noble cause, but using AGW as the reason is akin to telling a teenage boy to stop what he's doing because he's gonna go blind!

Re:Yes, you can trust me, I'm a professor (3, Insightful)

Eunuchswear (210685) | more than 4 years ago | (#32948060)

Grants that in NO WAY influence the conclusions of such research?

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 (2, Insightful)

feepness (543479) | more than 4 years ago | (#32947828)

Not scared? Maybe you should be.

And here I thought the right was the "Party of Fear"!

Re:I am not scared (4, Interesting)

popo (107611) | more than 4 years ago | (#32947912)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32948056)

Please define the difference between "environmental change", and "environmental damage".

Environmental damage is any environmental change which causes the environment to no longer be useful for our purposes. Most of the time our purpose is living within it, although in some cases it might apply to other uses such as industry, agriculture, or even just plain aesthetics.

The more commonly accepted definition of environmental damage is any change to the environment which was caused by, or a direct result of, mankinds involvement or actions. Usually the idea being that something a human has done has caused a permanent shift in how a local environment functions, and is usually specifically tied to the reduction or loss of plant and animals species. Whether this is a Good or Bad thing depends on your point of view and the specifics involved.

Re:I am not scared (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32947980)

According to my models, I can fly.

Re:I am not scared (5, Insightful)

PinkyGigglebrain (730753) | more than 4 years ago | (#32947732)

When it comes to size you have to stop thinking about the Earth, 12,752km diameter, and think about the atmosphere, 90% within 50km of surface.

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 (3, Informative)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 4 years ago | (#32947862)

"When it comes to size you have to stop thinking about the Earth, 12,752km diameter, and think about the atmosphere, 90% within 50km of surface."

And most (but not all) of the stuff that affects climate happens in the troposphere (bottom 5km).

Re:I am not scared (2, Interesting)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 4 years ago | (#32948036)

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 "An Inconvenient Truth" was interesting, where he said something along the lines of, he wanted to make sure people didn't come away from his documentary thinking it was too late to stop it. He also didn't talk about a lot of things that made his scenario much worse. The permafrost melting in Siberia, which makes things MUCH worse, and several other things around Earth that are happening far faster than even some of the nightmare scenarios climatologists have been talking about. It's WAY too late.

The problem then becomes, can we use technology to reverse it? Probably so, if we were willing to invest in some sort of global Manhattan-scale project to do something with nanotechnology or some other grandiose not-yet-there technology. But with the current climate of people being misled into thinking that this is even not real, that's NEVER going to happen. It's just not; that's a total fantasy. This may be the Fermi Paradox at work, though I doubt it'll get that bad. We can probably adapt to any Man-made disaster short of total nuclear annihilation. But the population left over may be quite a small fraction of what we have now. Not that Mother Nature would consider that a bad thing. It seems it's time to cull the herd. I'd just rather not be one of the ones culled.

Re:I am not scared (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 4 years ago | (#32947750)

and we might as well take our minds off what we cannot change...

This sounds uncannily like something your former president Ronnie Raygun said:

[paraphrasing:] "We're all gonna die, but since we're the good guys, we've got a first-class ticket to heaven, so we're OK, dammit. Yee-Haw!"

Re:I am not scared (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32947764)

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 (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32947770)

I am not a believer in man made global warming, we are in a warming cycle that follows a trend that is documented over millions of years.

This global over-politicization of the issue(i.e. Carbon credit, etc.) is just plain bullshit.

However, the current trend just might cause a Lot of misery to mankind. Ocean levels fluctuate wildly and a few extra feet would submerge a few island nations and displace millions of people.

So I applaud the effort of scientists to combat the problem and come up with a solution to the warming trend be it man made or not.

My fear is that nothing they come up with works as ultimately you cannot fight the Sun and Earth's natural cycles and all the blame will be set upon carbon.

Re:I am not scared (5, Interesting)

bertok (226922) | more than 4 years ago | (#32947892)

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

Re:I am not scared (1)

mjwx (966435) | more than 4 years ago | (#32947906)

is man actually capable of changing the properties of something as huge as planet Earth?

Yes, it is naive, perhaps to the point of retardedness to believe otherwise.

We can destroy 98% of all life on earth within hours, with the push of a button. This event will kick enough debris into the atmosphere to blockout the sun and create an ice age or did you forget we had weapons capable of destroying the earth, a few dozen times over... Sitting in tubes, ready to launch.

We are capable of producing great change, some good and some bad. Never underestimate the ability of humans to make devastating changes, every now and then even for the better.

1.5% over 1,000,000 may not sound like much, until you realise that 1.5% is compounding and that you aren't paying off enough to cover the interest repayments. The same is happening with greenhouse gas emissions. It may not seem like much above that which is produced naturally but it ad's up as we are compounding that amount and the natural systems are not taking care of it at a rate that is greater then our emissions.

Re:I am not scared (1)

turing_m (1030530) | more than 4 years ago | (#32947964)

Or, in other words, can we stop this even if we want to?

In principle, I believe so. 1. Collect solar energy from deserts (there is more than enough), using some sort of global (probably carbon) tax to fund it. 2. Use energy to convert water and CO2 to hydrocarbons. 3. Pump hydrocarbons back into the ground.

Step 3 needs a bit of work, but at least there are some proof of concepts I think. You could probably use this method to tweak global temperatures until they are just right (long-term), adjusting the CO2 level to counter other phenomena (e.g. solar output, whatever).

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.

FWIW, the prevention of the extinction of humanity should trump the alleviation of temporary human misery. Unless you meant the other way (images of Dungeon Keeper spring to mind)?

Re:I am not scared (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32947990)

is man actually capable of changing the properties of something as huge as planet Earth?

Yes.

Now stop bothering everybody and go back to your Intelligent Design class at the local Parish.

Or, in other words, can we stop this even if we want to?

Those aren't "in other words", that's totally different. Being able to affect a system is one thing, being able to affect it in a controlled fashion is another one. We certainly have the capability to impact our environment, whether we can intentionally do so and achieve the desired result remains to be seen.

Earth will continue changing as it will continue rotating, and we might as well take our minds off what we cannot change

Yes, it will keep changing. Eventually it will change enough so that we won't be able to live on it anymore. The solution is to figure out how to control the change to suit our needs, and/or to figure out how to get the hell off this rock. Sticking your head in the sand and pretending it isn't happening is just plain stupid- once it gets to the point where people are unable to ignore it any longer, it'll be much too late to do anything about it.

work a little bit more on what we can, i.e. the misery of mankind.

Ya, in case you hadn't noticed, we've been doing that for at least the last 5,000 years and haven't really 'solved' anything in that regard. That's really a losing battle to start with- there are a great number of people in this world who will only be happy when other people are not, and that just isn't going to change any time soon. In fact, mankind thrives on misery; without it we just end up sitting around getting fat. There is really a lot of truth to the saying "no pain, no gain". It is because of our misery, our suffering, that we are able to advance- as a species we require adversity and challenge in order to grow.

Re:I am not scared (1)

Vintermann (400722) | more than 4 years ago | (#32948014)

is man actually capable of changing the properties of something as huge as planet Earth?

The answer is yes. Remember Archimedes? "Give me a fixed point to stand and I shall move the earth", he said. It's all about leverage.

Now for climate, we have some very potent "levers". They're not exactly like levers in physics, but the point is you can turn a small movement into a big one.

The main lever is the water vapor feedback. As anyone who's hung around denialist blogs knows, water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas. What they try to obfuscate is that it's a "lever", and how it's connected to the other stuff.

If the world warms a little, there becomes more water vapor in the atmosphere. This keeps heat from the sun in, warming the planet further, causing even more water vapor in the atmosphere. (But you can relax a little, it's not an out-of-control feedback. A warmer planet radiates more heat into space. Eventually it radiates so much that it balances the extra heat from our new water vapor insulation.)

The reverse happens if the world cools a little. Less water vapor, leading to lower temperatures, leading to even less vapor, until the new balance is reached.

There are many such levers. CO2 is another one - as the world warms, so do the oceans, and warm water can dissolve less gas than cold water. A great deal of CO2 is dissolved in seawater, so as the world warms, the oceans release CO2, leading to further warming, leading to further release etc. This is a slower lever, but very powerful. It is thought that the CO2 lever is responsible for ice ages - Milankovich cycles, the small orbital anomalies that cause cooling and warming with periods of some hundred thousand years, by themselves only cause a tiny temperature difference. It would hardly matter for life on earth if it hadn't been magnified so forcefully by the CO2 and water vapor feedbacks.

This is how man can change the properties of something as huge as planet earth. A trillion tons of CO2 that used to be buried deep beneath the surface is now in the atmosphere thanks to human activities. It may not sound like much, as big as the crust and atmosphere is, but the planet just isn't set up to be forgiving of such changes - at least not to us.

Photos from the same spot but not the same season (4, Insightful)

drmerope (771119) | more than 4 years ago | (#32947668)

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 (-1, Troll)

MikeFM (12491) | more than 4 years ago | (#32947738)

I guess the question is.. why should I care? IMO people who climb mountains have mental issues anyway and I certainly don't care how much ice is on the mountain.

I vote for installing a nice enclosed and heated handicapped accessible moving sidewalk to take everyone up to a viewing station and tourist trap on top the mountain. If I can't eat a cheeseburger at the end of the Universe then I should at least be able to eat one on top of the world.

Re:Photos from the same spot but not the same seas (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32947742)

TFA doesn't mention anything about the time of year each of the pictures was taken. It also ignores the fact that some glaciers seem to be growing in the Himalayas
http://news.discovery.com/earth/himalayas-glaciers-shrink.html

Didn't even check if evidence existed (2, Interesting)

mrcaseyj (902945) | more than 4 years ago | (#32947746)

I don't know about the credibility of this report. Maybe the glaciers are melting because of human CO2, maybe they would have melted anyway, or maybe they aren't even melting. But when the supposedly respected Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change made that mistake in their report where they claimed the Himilayan glaciers would melt by 2035, it exposed more than a simple mistake. It showed that for their report, the IPCC didn't do what you would expect, which is thoroughly scrutinize what they cited. Nor did they look over what they cited to see if it was reasonable. No, they didn't bother with all that. They didn't even check to see if the evidence they cited about the effects of global warming EVEN EXISTED.

The entire climate science community has defended "Mike's Nature trick" to "hide the decline" so that people wouldn't see how bad their evidence is, instead of criticizing the hiding of results that cast major doubt on their evidence. None of them have any credibility left, and will never get it back until they condemn instead of defend "Mike's Nature trick".

My criticism of climate science on Slashdot are routinely the target of moderator abuse, so watch the down moded comments for good stuff.

Re:Didn't even check if evidence existed (0, Offtopic)

dmuir (964412) | more than 4 years ago | (#32947854)

Wow. I actually saw your comment get down moded in real time! Kind of proves your point about moderator abuse...

Re:Didn't even check if evidence existed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32948042)

Or maybe people mod you down because your a crackpot? I'm just sayin.

Re:Didn't even check if evidence existed (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32948044)

So in a 3000 page report, you can point to one minor error, in the section for policymakers (not scientists), which was dealt with correctly in the section for scientists, which was picked up by an author of that section... to abandon over 100 years of climate change science?

Your posts aren't getting modded down because of moderator abuse. They're getting modded down because you're a gullible moron.

But as you can see from this thread, the denialist moderators are out in force tonight.

Re:Photos from the same spot but not the same seas (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32947796)

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.

Oh right, you're one of those deniers I've heard abou;, who requires evidence before he'll believe. Behold the power of faith, my friend, and you don't need evidence! (hopefully my sarcasm is evident...)

Re:Photos from the same spot but not the same seas (1)

louarnkoz (805588) | more than 4 years ago | (#32947818)

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....

Glaciers do not change much with the seasons. Ever heard of things moving "at glacier pace"? Normal movements are in inches. What we see on the photos are differences in miles. No way you can explain that by spring versus fall! This glacier did melt.

Re:Photos from the same spot but not the same seas (5, Informative)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 4 years ago | (#32947868)

Unfortunately, the images in TFA are a bit misleading, as they are not taken from the same point. If you look closely, you'll find that the black and white image only starts about 20% into the left of the color image, and similarly the color image ends too soon, about 20% on the right of the black and white image.

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 (1)

drmerope (771119) | more than 4 years ago | (#32947904)

Yes glaciers are not seasonal. The author invites us to conclude that everything in the old picture is glacier. That's just not necessarily so, and that's why its important to understand what the normal variability in snow cover is for the particular slopes in view.

Re:Photos from the same spot but not the same seas (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 4 years ago | (#32947922)

They can change relatively rapidly with some human help. Either shrinking or in the following cases growing:

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/4932332-indian-engineer-builds-glaciers-to-fight-climate-change [allvoices.com]

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.

The first one he built was in 1987; it is now two kilometers long and provides supplemental water to four villages. "In four months you can have one million cubic feet of ice," said Norphel, who won a CNN-IBN "Real Heroes" Award in 2008 for his work.

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.

Re:Photos from the same spot but not the same seas (1, Informative)

Paua Fritter (448250) | more than 4 years ago | (#32947872)

Dude, get off your high horse for a moment and check out the photographic exhibition website where they say that we are talking about 100m (actually they say "320 vertical feet") of ice that's been lost in Rongbuk glacier. That's a lot of ice, and is far more than anything attributable to seasonality.

http://sites.asiasociety.org/riversofice/comparative-photography [asiasociety.org]

Re:Photos from the same spot but not the same seas (1)

Qantravon (1466953) | more than 4 years ago | (#32948040)

I was actually about to post that very link. The BBC article is kind of useless, since it doesn't really give any actual information, just, "Experts say this is bad."

Looking at the photos, there does seem to be a lot of change. However, there is also a shelf (immediately in front of the camera) of what appears to be rock in the old photo, that looks much lower in the newer one. Not quite sure what's going on there. Could be some of the glacier that had rocks on top (it says glaciers can get covered with debris), or could be that some geological activity caused the rock to shift in some way (quite possible, considering the Himalayas are on a continental plate boundary). If it is the latter, it could be that the whole glacier got shifted by geological activity. If someone wants to do the research on earthquake activity in the Himalayas over the past 80 years, it would be appreciated.

As far as AGW goes, I would normally be inclined to believe the scientists. However, considering that there have been instances of data mishandling, and people have been caught in outright lies and fabrication, I have to be somewhat suspicious. I find that I just can't trust them completely. It also doesn't help that the whole situation is being pressed by all kinds of political and corporate agendas.

The thing about this is, the public-at-large is really incapable of making an informed analysis of this data itself. Most of us are not trained in the necessary skills to do so, and it is an extremely complex field, making people who study the science as a hobby very, very rare. Therefore, in order for us to have any grasp on what's going on, we have to be informed by the scientists. We have to put our trust in them. Unfortunately, enough of them have broken that trust, as I previously mentioned, that we can't really take what is said by any of them at face value.

Re:Photos from the same spot but not the same seas (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 4 years ago | (#32947902)

It should also be noted that the 2350 figure is for ALL the ice to melt. Considering roughly a quater of the world's population rely on these glaciers for water there will be severe consequences well before it's all gone.

Re:Photos from the same spot but not the same seas (1)

matunos (1587263) | more than 4 years ago | (#32947940)

Compared to those photos, I find your unsourced blog comments to be much more compelling evidence.

Re:Photos from the same spot but not the same seas (4, Insightful)

thestuckmud (955767) | more than 4 years ago | (#32947958)

"Nonsense"???

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:Photos from the same spot but not the same seas (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 4 years ago | (#32947986)

It's worth also remembering that anytime something like this happens, it is natural to jump to CO2 as the cause, even though that might not be a valid assessment. At one time, for example, people thought the melting glaciers off Kilimanjaro was caused by global warming, but it turned out it was mainly caused by deforestation.

The article (which is light on evidence) doesn't make the connection or give any evidence as to the cause. Whether you think AGW is a serious problem or not, you ought to demand rigorous testing for any thesis presented. Anything less is unscientific.

Re:Photos from the same spot but not the same seas (0)

mSparks43 (757109) | more than 4 years ago | (#32948002)

BBC in Ice melts in summer shocker

Re:Photos from the same spot but not the same seas (1)

pspahn (1175617) | more than 4 years ago | (#32948054)

...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.

Brashears is a pretty bright dude. He knows that mountain as well as anybody who has ever lived. If he went to the trouble of going up there to take photos as close to Mallory's as possible, I'm sure he also went to the trouble to make sure any other variability was as close to the original as possible.

Too bad slashdot (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32947702)

Ten years ago, I would have thought it's something if it made it to slashdot front page. Now, chances are, it's another bullshit. And it's an understatement by "bullshit".

Re:Too bad slashdot (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32947928)

Hey, taco, get a real job, instead of milking the shit you've done a decade ago till it shrivels up. It's already shriveled up to nothing? Fuck me. Sayonara, losers.

And what season were these taken? (2, Insightful)

Delgul (515042) | more than 4 years ago | (#32947712)

The first in mid-winter? The second high-summer? We don't know. And that is exactly the problem. Every time some alarmist 'scientist' comes with this kind of 'evidence' they leave something out. We just cannot trust these guys anymore...

The Newest Wave of Warmist Alarm (0, Flamebait)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 4 years ago | (#32947786)

Seeking desperately to do anything to deflect public attention from rigged data sets and lack of peer review, the Warmists have for some odd reason returned to their Waterloo of the Himalayas, seeking to show that in fact the glaciers will all vanish in short order (even the summary writer goes there with the link).

The pictures to me are not that convincing, given the time of year may be (and looks to be) different. Furthermore just as with most other Warmist alarm-filled propaganda, they give no hard data - they never define just what "alarming rate" really means, or give any details why the pictures show what they claim.

We know glaciers have been receding somewhat, but is this case really alarming or is it simply receding at the same rate other glaciers generally have been? Remember kids that there can still be a general warming trend WITHOUT being sure that the bulk of it is caused by man, or that the amount of warming is really enough to be that concerned about over any other normal climate shift the Earth might undergo.

Re:The Newest Wave of Warmist Alarm (4, Insightful)

bug1 (96678) | more than 4 years ago | (#32947844)

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:The Newest Wave of Warmist Alarm (1)

jjohnson (62583) | more than 4 years ago | (#32947938)

I think you mean "as opposed to the denialists who release petitions with 30,000 names on them, of whom 29,900 either have no scientific expertise in climate change, or flat-out deny that they signed the petition."

Wake me when that happens (-1, Flamebait)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 4 years ago | (#32947996)

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 ?

I guess that's at least three now since you, the warmist, just mistook the deniers for the warmists...

And that report had far more than "one or two" mistakes. Not to mention a lot of it was not actually science, just more alarmist propoganda (like the glacier thing) with no real peer review, just designed to scare people.

Hmm, actually, no. Its the "Warmists" who are releasing the hard data,

Where is it then? Or should I correct your statement:

"Its the "Warmists" who are releasing the alarming graphs, but you can't see the actual data"

You are treating end results as fact without letting other scientists check your work.

In short, science FAIL.

Re:The Newest Wave of Warmist Alarm (1)

mjwx (966435) | more than 4 years ago | (#32947994)

Seeking desperately to do anything to deflect public attention from a few typos hyped up by tabloid newspapers,

TFTFY,

You're doing this whole scepticism thing wrong. Just to elaborate how:
Sceptic: I need to see evidence. A does not lead directly to C, show me B.
Denalists: I dont believe in C therefore A must be some kind of conspiracy.

I think it's fairly obvious you fit into the second category as you seem to lack the ability to demonstrate a semi-objective view and evaluate all evidence and the source from which it came.

I think you need to get a grip, you are more interested in pushing your agenda then actually presenting evidence.

This makes sense (5, Informative)

hopejr (995381) | more than 4 years ago | (#32947790)

Nepal's power is run from hydro installed by the Russians many years ago. The generators are on the rivers that contain run-off from the Himalayas. I used to live there ('99-'01) and there was enough problems with lack of water then for us to have many brown outs. But lately, friends over there have been telling me that the power has been out for weeks on end, with hospitals, etc, having to constantly run their diesel generators, increasing the already excessive amount of pollution in the air, especially around Kathmandu. They've been saying that it's because the rivers have had hardly any water in them, which is caused by the decreasing amount of ice on the mountains.

Re:This makes sense (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32947824)

You are a fucking LYER. None -NONE- of what you say has any basis in truth. FOLKS, check it out before you mod the parent "insightfuL" because in fact it is hog wash.

Ignoring the really important facts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32947802)

This article completely ignores the obvious fact that the amount of cloud cover over mount everest has quadrupled in just 80 years.

At this rate the entire planet will be surrounded by clouds before 2035.

Get it right, damn it. (5, Insightful)

kurokame (1764228) | more than 4 years ago | (#32947900)

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.

OMG, it's *just* like this story (1)

scdeimos (632778) | more than 4 years ago | (#32947946)

They even took the same photo from the same spot...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7895611/Photos-show-dramatic-shrinking-of-Mount-Everest-glaciers.html

Re:OMG, it's *just* like this story (1)

scdeimos (632778) | more than 4 years ago | (#32947948)

[In case you missed it, the second photo was taken in 2007]

Global warming and you. (4, Interesting)

jcochran (309950) | more than 4 years ago | (#32947968)

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.

Operation Hat (1, Interesting)

afabbro (33948) | more than 4 years ago | (#32948068)

This should really get exciting once the icepack around the lost Operation Hat SNAP reactor melts.

If you've never heard the story...briefly...in 1965, the US put a spy station in the Himalayas to observe Chinese nuclear tests. It had a SNAP (keg-sized) nuclear reactor as its power source. Unfortunately, it was lost in an avalanche. It's still there, buried under a pile of snow, its plutonium poised over the headwaters of the Ganges...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?