Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   02/03/18

      We have upgraded to new forum software as of late last year, and it makes everything here so much better!  It is now much easier to do pretty much anything, including write Trip Reports, sell gear, schedule climbing related events, and more. There is a new reputation system that allows for positive contributors to be recognized,  it is possible to tag content with identifiers, drag and drop in images, and it is much easier to embed multimedia content from Youtube, Vimeo, and more.  In all, the site is much more user friendly, bug free, and feature rich!   Whether you're a new user or a grizzled cascadeclimbers.com veteran, we think you'll love the new forums. Enjoy!
Sign in to follow this  
MtnGoat

Impact study shows climbing damages ecosytems

Recommended Posts

All I'm saying is gloabal warming seems like a much larger issue than this cliff shit, to which there is only one study.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by klenke:
AlpineK:

There is no proof that Global Warming is actually taking place. The divide between scientists on this one is split right down the middle.

Some things mentioned by my Mechanical Engineering Reference Manual (Lindeburg, 2001, page 66-11):"Other researchers can detect no discernible upward trend, and some offer a counter argument. Based on the retreat of the northern-most lines capable of growing oranges since 1850, some believe that the weather is generally getting colder, not hotter. The 4 to 12 inch rise in the level of the oceans over the last century is disputed."

"Arguments against the hypothesis center around that fact that manufactured carbon dioxide is a small fraction of what is naturally released (e.g., by wetlands, rain forest fires, and during volcanic eruptions). It is argued that, in the face of such massive contributors, [manufacturing contributions are negligible]."

I have no opinion either way on this one.

Nice to see some common sense on this issue. However I believe the science does indicate global warming is taking place. Whether or not it is human caused is another matter. The jury is still out. Recent data indicates that both of Mars' icecaps are in retreat. Is this human caused too? Maybe a solar issue?

Given our planets varied climate history, it is likey the current warming is a natural cycle. (In my non-scientific opinion.) smile.gif" border="0

This thread is in BIG danger of taking on a new direction that I'm not sure is within the realm of a "climbing" issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Fairweather:

...This thread is in BIG danger of taking on a new direction that I'm not sure is within the realm of a "climbing" issue.

If you climb or ski on glaciers then global warming is WELL within an issue related to climbing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Methane is the really nasty greenhouse gas- lots worse than CO or CO2. If we just put buttplugs in all the cattle and cc.com sprayers; the world would be a much cooler and happier place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by CleeshterFeeshter:
Methane is the really nasty greenhouse gas- lots worse than CO or CO2. If we just put buttplugs in all the cattle and cc.com sprayers; the world would be a much cooler and happier place.

You first Cheeshter. tongue.gif" border="0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by klenke:
AlpineK:

There is no proof that Global Warming is actually taking place. The divide between scientists on this one is split right down the middle.

I'd have to disagree on this. Global warming does not necessarily imply that every area of the globe will see an increase in temperature, only that some do (and some hella sensitive places too, like the Antartic). This has far reaching effects, only one of which is observed decreases in temperatures in certain areas.

AlpineK - and so actually, we might have global warming to thank for all of this snowpack in the NW lately...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saying "global warming", clouds the issue (pun). "Humanly induced climate change" is a more accurate phrase. The issue is not if the globe is warming as a whole, but to what degree anthropogenic emissions are influencing global climate*, and what we can do to minimize effects of such potential changes.

senmantics controls your discussion. if you cant agree on what you are discussing, how can you discuss it?

*see, this includes the ozone layer. Phasing out use of CFCs didnt ruin our economy, did it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a hard time keeping up with the science, but I do know that when I was a kid in the 70's there was always a lot more snow and at lower elevations.

Also my dad, who grew up here in the 30's notes the same thing. He has pictures of Rainier that really make this point.

While there is no 100% link between humans and global warming, if we wait till there is it may be so far advanced that doing something about it will be impossible.

I think Fairweather may be right to some degree in criticizing the Keoto(SP) agreement. Capping consumption may be way to hard on the economy and ineffective in real reduction. I'm more in favor of governmet spending on alternative sources of energy. Unfortunately I think Bush is in bed with the big oil industry (why else would he try and keep info on the energy policy from public review), so it's just going to be business as usual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by AlpineK:
I have a hard time keeping up with the science, but I do know that when I was a kid in the 70's there was always a lot more snow and at lower elevations.

Also my dad, who grew up here in the 30's notes the same thing. He has pictures of Rainier that really make this point.

Climbing Magazine did an article recently (3 or 4 issues ago) regarding receding glaciers in the high mountains with definitive photos. While a picture tells a pretty good story, I think that the "experts" do not have the information necessary to come to a definitive answer on the cause. We all know how unreliable the computer models are for predicting weather next week. How can they be so sure of what will happen in 25-50 years? All of their predictive modelling is based on empirical data which has only been accurately gathered for how many years? My opinion (as a self-accredited armchair weather scientist) is that they do not have a large enough sample of data to draw from to arrive at statistically significant hypotheses.

Could what we are experiencing be just part of another larger cycle that we have not been measuring long enough to recognize?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by AlpineK:
I have a hard time keeping up with the science, but I do know that when I was a kid in the 70's there was always a lot more snow and at lower elevations.

Also my dad, who grew up here in the 30's notes the same thing. He has pictures of Rainier that really make this point.

While there is no 100% link between humans and global warming, if we wait till there is it may be so far advanced that doing something about it will be impossible.

I think Fairweather may be right to some degree in criticizing the Keoto(SP) agreement. Capping consumption may be way to hard on the economy and ineffective in real reduction. I'm more in favor of governmet spending on alternative sources of energy. Unfortunately I think Bush is in bed with the big oil industry (why else would he try and keep info on the energy policy from public review), so it's just going to be business as usual.

Ya see... the Earth has been warming more or less steadily since the end of the Little Ice Age (Neoglaciation) in 1860 or thereabouts. Most midlatitude temperate glaciers have been retreating since then.

Setting aside the question of if the Neoglaciation ended because of human activities (Industrial Revolution activities) and it probably didnt, the question is, is this rate of warming INCREASING BECAUSE OF HUMAN ACTIVITY? see, that is a much harder question to answer than, are things warming up, which we already know the answer to is "yes".

So the evidence I have seen, in my opinion, tends to support the conclusion that we are increasing the rate of warming. Not everybody agrees and even our best models disagree on the magnitude of our influence. BUT using the precautionary principle it seems better to assume we are capable of having a serious impact, and do something about it, than wait till things are really fucked up to htry and fix it. Because some of the engineering solutions proposed (making lots of stable plastic and burying it, fertilizing the oceans to create massive plankton blooms to fix carbon, etc.) sound really fucked and way more expensive than increasing fuel efficiency and switching to alternative technologies not on the carbon cycle (like making hydrogen from water with solar, wind and hydro (and nuclear frown.gif" border="0 but that has its own problems - we need workable fusion NOW) power, then using that hydrogen in fuel cells) .

Anyways that was much too thoughtful and normal so FUCK YOU ALL IM GONNA APPROVE THE RAPE AND PILLAGE OF AN ENTIRE PRISTINE VALLEY NOW [Moon]rolleyes.gif" border="0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to contribute to thread creep, but I just can't let this kind of B.S. pass by...And I'll preface my response by saying that I am a climate (global warming) researcher. I am not a flaming liberal, and I do not believe the sky is falling, I just have spent a long time studying this issue and I hate to see misinformation thrown about.

There is no question that the phenomena of "global warming" (an unfortunate tag, as it leads to the misconception that we will see warming everywhere) is real -- the physics behind adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere leading to an increase in the *global average* temperature is exceptionally clear. Like, more solid than "smoking a pack of cigarettes a day increases your risk of getting cancer". The difficult question is how this average temperature change will manifest in things like sea level rise, frequency and intensity of El Nino and similar events, changes in rainfall distribution, and of course changes in temperature patterns. How fast the changes will occur and exactly how severe the changes will be is uncertain, but that there will be changes -- with winners and losers -- is not disputable.

And yes, the global climate has changed many times in the past. But we are inducing changes in the climate on a timescale of 100 years that nature is used to deal with on more like a 1,000-10,000 year timescale. And the earth didn't need to support 6+billion people during past climate changes. No one is saying the earth is going to end -- just that it may not be able to support everything that's on it right now, including us.

quote:

"Other researchers can detect no discernible upward trend, and some offer a counter argument. Based on the retreat of the northern-most lines capable of growing oranges since 1850, some believe that the weather is generally getting colder, not hotter. The 4 to 12 inch rise in the level of the oceans over the last century is disputed."

There *was* satellite data that indicated a slight cooling of the upper atmosphere that was much-sited by those wanting to dispute global warming. Last year, an error in the satellite calibration algorithm was discovered and when it was corrected the satellite data switched to showing a warming trend that is consistent with the ground-based data. (For the skeptics out there, these corrections were applied by the scientists who had originally published the data, so it was not a matter of some outsider going in and tweaking the data to give the answer they wanted).There are no data sets that show a global average cooling over the past 100-200 years.To cite "the northern-nmost lines capable of growing oranges since 1850" as evidence of global cooling is absurd. "Global warming" does not mean warming *everywhere*; some places will cool because of changes in atmospheric dynamics brought on by global warming. Also changes in rainfall patterns and other factors can shift growing regimes, not just temperature. (I would equally dispute a single data point such as the disappearance of butterflies from a certain region as evidence in favor of global warming). As for sea level rise, you are correct that we cannot yet determine if there have been changes in sea level due to human-caused warming; the signal just isn't big enough yet. But there is no question that if you warm the ocean, it expands, and sea level rises. And there is little question that on a 100-yr timescale sea level will rise due to anthropogenically-induced global warming -- enough to flood some small countries such as Barbados and the Maldives, as well as our own Everglades.

quote:

"Arguments against the hypothesis center around that fact that manufactured carbon dioxide is a small fraction of what is naturally released (e.g., by wetlands, rain forest fires, and during volcanic eruptions). It is argued that, in the face of such massive contributors, [manufacturing contributions are negligible]."

Yeah, and if I add $100 to a jar every day, and take out $100 every day, and JoeBlow comes in and adds $1 to the same jar but doesn't take anything out, who's got more impact on how much $$ is in the jar?Sure, nature releases way more CO2 into the atmosphere than we do -- but it also REMOVES it (trees, ocean biota, etc). And it does a lovely job of balancing what it puts in with what it takes out, and it even does a good job of absorbing a portion of what we put in -- but not nearly all of it. The data showing an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations is indisputable, and it is indisputably linked to anthropogenic emissions. No one other than Rush Limbaugh (and apparently this engineering dude who clearly doesn't know what he's talking about) dispute that.

Re: methane. Methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, on a per-molecule basis, but methane only accounts for 20% of the human-induced change to radiative balance of the earth. CO2 is responsible for 70% of the change. This is not a disputed fact.Also, if you are worried about methane, you should be aware that if we warm the earth enough by continuing to add CO2 to the atmosphere at the current rate, the northern permafrost might melt and release enough methane to make the cows' contribution look like a drop in the bucket.Also, why the heck do you think there are so damn many cows out there: cause *people* like to eat em!!

I'm with AlpineK, if you want to worry about your impact on the environment as a climber the first thing you should try and do something about is how much gas you burn driving to the cliff/mountains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

kleink

I don't know where you find all these scientists that dissagree. To the best of my understanding "Global warming' is real; it is most likely affected by humans; only the degree to which we are affecting the change is the area of hot debate.

Even if we don't have a massive impact on global temps there are a number of other reasons to quit using oil as a fuel source.

Polution, The fact it's a finite resource, the number of wars we need to fight in the middle east to keep the supply rolling.

Anyhow this has become thread creep, but I put the oil debate a lot higher on the list of things to worry about than cliff plants and animals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should hire tree surgeon AlpineK to cut down all your trees. wink.gif" border="0 Then climbers could climb everywhere and climate scientists would have a large sample size to prove global warming happens wink.gif" border="0

Doug, How do you correlate changes in tree growth rings with temperature as opposed to other factors? I know you can do it cause Ive done it myself but Im wondering if you use lake sediment cores or whatever as corroborative evidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Dru:
You should hire tree surgeon AlpineK to cut down all your trees.
wink.gif" border="0
Then climbers could climb everywhere and climate scientists would have a large sample size to prove global warming happens.

I like to think I promote tree preservation, but I have no problem killing trees as long as someone pays me. wink.gif" border="0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any body have any Idea how warm this earth was when our great cascades where formed... Oh thats right we weren't around back then... how the F@$% do we know whats a good climate change.... The water has to melt out of the glacies before it can be evaperated in higher amounts.... right???? so wouldn't that mean that we could be causing warming only to cause another Iceage...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Any body have any Idea how warm this earth was when our great cascades where formed... Oh thats rightwe weren't around back then... how the F@$% do we know whats a good climate change....

Yeah, there's nothing inherently superior about our current climate versus an ice age or versus the days of the dinosaurs, but the earth didn't have to support 6 billion people back then. Heck, Venus has a really amazing climate but I wouldn't want to live there.

quote:

The water has to melt out of the glacies before it can be evaperated in higher amounts.... right???? so wouldn't that mean that we could be causing warming only to cause another Iceage...

HUH??????? more water = iceage ???go smoke another one, dude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be cautious believing the 'scientific consensus' of the IPCC doesn't contain at least an equal dose of politics as data. The reference list is what should matter, go and read all the original papers rolleyes.gif" border="0 ... or should I say original *.pdf files since we're tryin' to save trees smile.gif" border="0

Incidentally, I recently saw that Howie Richardson has published a paper on the relationship of climbing activity in the Skaha Bluffs to song-bird populations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All right so It wouldn't cause another iceage but my point is why would it be so bad... maybe an increace of persipation would cause the rivers in the mountains to cut deeper canyons, more climbing areas... or not... but thats not my point eitheer... would it be so bad if part of the 6 billion dumb shits on this planet kicked the bucket, just don't build a house on the beach and expect it to be there in for the next couple of hundered years... the earth is going to be here a lot longer than man kind will, thank the god of evolution... so we are just a force of nature a natural element that has a huge impact on the earth... she'll be ok in the long run, and if not then we are no more than a disease, put here to consume every resorce in site... we diserve to kill our selves... shocked.gif" border="0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to fern

Do you know what journal the paper by Howie Richardson was published in? I'd like to read it.

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya know Jake, there's a part of me that agrees with you. The earth would definitely be better off with fewer people. The trouble for me w/ this argument is that the people who caused the problem are not the ones who will suffer. We as Americans will have a much greater ability to adapt to a rapidly changing climate than will people in poorer countries who are currently (and have so far) done little to add to global warming. And they do not have nearly the resources that we have to do mitigate future emissions. Just look a the havoc that you get in developing countries when a hurricaine or earthquake hits versus the damages here.

I lived in the Maldives for a couple of months and those people aren't doing shit to add to the g.w. problem yet they are unlikely to have a country left in 100 yrs. This is a people with a separate culture, language, history, who will lose their home -- and probably be dumped on the Indian subcontinent to survive among the masses there -- because we think we have some inherent right as Americans to the biggest gas-hog we want, and to fill it with heavily subsidized fuel no less.

Damn, keep this crap up and we're going to catch up with Muir on Saturday in no time...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what would the effect be on a "smaller" country... wouldn't the increace of temp. added with an increace of rain fall be a good thing for a country that is souly propeled by aguculture, not to mention the plants would have more of their kind of air to breath.... I agree that us as an industrial country has the obligation to be aware and to try to better our effect on the world... but.... the other part of me wants to drive my big truck around town and do burnouts and stoplights... wink.gif" border="0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

unfortunately most plant growth is not limited by availability of CO2. some studies show increases in plant growth with higher concentrations of CO2, but only if you also add more fertilizer and plenty of water, and only for certain plant types. overall, the negative impacts of climate change will overwhelm any gains due to CO2 fertilization.

warmer weather would be good for agriculture in some places (like northern Russia; there are scientists there who believe fully in global warming and are advising their gov't that it is a good thing!) but most 3rd world countries are in parts of the world that are already plenty warm.

as for rainfall, we can't accurately predict what the exact changes would be, but we do expect that rainfall will become more episodic -- i.e. longer, more intense drought periods, then really heavy precip. and large regions -- like the central U.S. -- are likely to experience more frequent and more extreme droughts that can result in things like the 1930's dustbowl. Not pretty.

the other factor is that the climate changes are expected to be *rapid* enough that in many cases neither nature or mankind will be able to adapt to the changes, especially in 3rd world countries.

So if you want to play in your truck, buy a diesel and run it on bio-fuel and you will be producing zero net CO2 emissions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×