kaya'08
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2008
- Messages
- 6,363
- Reaction score
- 1,318
- Location
- British Turk
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Photos taken by a mountaineer on Everest from the same spot where similar pictures were taken in 1921 have revealed an "alarming" ice loss.
The Asia Society (AS) arranged for the pictures to be taken in exactly the same place where British climber George Mallory took photos in 1921.
BBC News - Comparative photos of Mount Everest 'confirm ice loss'
The issue here is, we are in July, and the world over is far warmer due to the natural cycle of the seasons (Northern hemisphere regions anyway).
The article claims repeatedly the photos where taken in the exact same place George Mallory took the photos in 1921 but fails to mention that George went in June, a naturally cooler month than July, or if this year is on average warmer than 1921 for whatever natural/coincidential anomalie.
Couple points:
BBC News - Comparative photos of Mount Everest 'confirm ice loss'
The issue here is, we are in July, and the world over is far warmer due to the natural cycle of the seasons (Northern hemisphere regions anyway).
The article claims repeatedly the photos where taken in the exact same place George Mallory took the photos in 1921 but fails to mention that George went in June, a naturally cooler month than July, or if this year is on average warmer than 1921 for whatever natural/coincidential anomalie.
Couple points:
1) This year is far warmer than 1921. In fact, 2010 is on track to set yet another new record. (Jan-June, globally the hottest on record)
2) This loss of ice we've seen is far, far beyond the scope of monthly or even yearly variation. Just being June vs July or Cold Year vs Warm Year could not possibly cause a loss of ice on this scale. You'd need years and years of consistently warmer weather for this to happen.
3) These photos are not intended to be scientific proof of global warming, just proof that we're losing ice on this particular mountain.
The only difference in snow is there is a bit less on the mountain top and on the floor. I dont see how a warmer month wouldn't cause this loss in ice. Why would it need years of consistent warmth?
You're underestimating the volume of ice we're talking about, which is understandable given the poor resolution of the older photo. (edit: also the scale of that mountain is not easily seen from the photo) It's a crapload of ice, and it never really gets "warm" at that altitude. The average temperature in July at the summit is -19C
Judging from the photo the ice on the floor which has receded doesn't look like much ice to me anyway.
I know -19 is cold! But, as the temperature drops, so would the magnitude of the ice, right?
Is this a situation where the ice has been receding since the last ice age ended?
Of course climate change is happening. The climate is ALWAYS changing. Has been for millions of years. Why do people assume there should be some steady state?In the West we are still having our quaint little discussions about whether or not climate change is happening.
Of course climate change is happening. The climate is ALWAYS changing. Has been for millions of years. Why do people assume there should be some steady state?
The debate is not whether "climate change is happening" but whether we're bringing about significant warming through use of fossil fuels.
The proportion of Americans who think that the earth is warming due to human activites is somewhere in the range of 50%. Are you really trying to suggest that there's no real debate because millions are being paid by the oil industry to dispute the effects of fossil fuels?If by "debate" you mean "people paid by the oil industry dispute the effects of fossil fuels."
Greenland was first inhabited about 4,500 years ago. The earliest residents arrived from the west, but either left or died due to periods of exceptionally cold weather and/or poor hunting. Signs of their presence have been found near Maniitsoq. The region seems to have then been uninhabited for about 3,000 years.
The next migration came from the east, following "Erik the Red" Thorwaldsson's exploration of the southern coast of Greenland between 982 and 985 AD. In 986, he led a group of Viking families from Iceland, and settled at Brattahlid, traditionally known as Qassiarsuk (route map). The climate at this time was very warm, much wamer than it is today, and crops were able to do well. It seems likely that the name "Greenland" was given to the country, not just as wishful thinkful, but because it was a climatic fact at that time.
Though the beginning of the Cenozoic - the Paleocene - was cooler than the hottest part of the Paleozoic, it was much warmer than today. Oxygen isotope ratios show the ocean was 10° to 15° Celsius warmer than today. For Americans who know nothing of metric units, that's 18°-27° Fahrenheit warmer than now. That's hot!
55 million years ago, at the very end of the Paleocene there was an drastic incident called the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. You can see it as the spike labelled "PETM" on this graph. Ocean surface temperatures worldwide shot up by 5-8°C for a few thousand years - but in the Arctic, it heated up even more, to a balmy 23°C (73°F). This caused a severe dieoff of little ocean critters called foraminifera, and a drastic change of the dominant mammal species. What caused this? Maybe a sudden release of greenhouse gases - carbon dioxide from volcanos, or a "methane burp" released from gas hydrates on the sea floor. People have indeed found drastically different carbon isotope ratios at this time.
At the start of the Eocene, the continents were close to where they are now, but the average annual temperature in arctic Canada and Siberia was a balmy 18° C (65° F). The dominant plants up there were palm trees and cycads. Fossil monitor lizards (sort of like alligators) dating back to this era have been found in Svalbard, an island north of Greenland that's now covered with ice all year. Antarctica was home to cool temperate forests, including beech trees and ferns. In particular, our Earth had no permanent polar ice caps!
Global warming is a real thing, the approach is wrong..The planet will be just fine, it's the things that are living on the planet that won't be.
So apparently the climate is not a static, stable system? Who knew?
It is the height of human conceit to think we have anything to do with climate change, and the height of stupidity to think we could do anything about it. It's natural, and it will happen time and again.
So apparently the climate is not a static, stable system? Who knew?
The proportion of Americans who think that the earth is warming due to human activites is somewhere in the range of 50%. Are you really trying to suggest that there's no real debate because millions are being paid by the oil industry to dispute the effects of fossil fuels?
Maybe you're trying to insinuate that only scientists - certain scientists at that, are qualified to debate the topic. Is this where we get the wiki link to studies showing that the small proportion of scientists who receive their funding to study anthropogenic climate change belive that climate change is anthropogenic?
No, it is the height of human conceit to think that we can do whatever we want and the earth will just adapt; it is the height of human conceit to think that we can continually exceed the limits of the earth's natural bounty each year and expect the system to recover; it is the height of human conceit to think that we ourselves are immune from the effects of our own polluting.
Even if the American right wants to continue to water down the climate change debate in order to subjectify it for political reasons, there are plenty of other valid, proven reasons to reduce the output of human pollution. Never before in human history has cancer, heart disease, diabetes, genetic disorders, infertility, and mental illness been as high as it is now.
One in three people develop heart disease or stroke in their lifetimes and the age bracket is becoming younger each year; one in four will get cancer. How long will we wait before we decide to change our lifestyle of excess? When it's one in two? Or every person?
Honestly. How long are the apologists and deniers going to keep spinning the propaganda that things are going to be ok? They're not. The industrial revolution is only a couple of hundred years in the making, and the consumer era is about 50 years in the making. Fossil fuel use has the same shelf life. Our entire paradigm of how we think things should operate is going to come crashing down, the only thing we have a choice in is whether the transition is smooth or if it will be traumatic.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?