Poopy News

[Dr_Flush_Amazing]

Not good at all.

[Kraken]

guess that means less chance of a crevasse fall for the climbers of 2100

[underworld]

well, this says it all:

 

It is not quite a representative sample of all mountain glaciers, but does give a reliable indication of global trends.

 

 

err...or it says nothing

[kevbone]

Bummer

[ClimbingPanther]

err...or it says nothing

you're joking, right?

 

Just to prove once again that there isn't a situation in life that "Lord of the Rings" doesn't have a quote for...

 

"The world is changed... Much that once was is lost."

[underworld]

LOTR

 

 

the quote says it is not representative, yet it is a reliable indication...

 

wtf does that mean??

[Off_White]

Underworld, you're falling behind in your talking points. A global warming trend is pretty much accepted as a fact by most parties, your fallback position now is that it's not necessarily human induced, therefore we don't need to change anything we do. Note that the effect on glaciers is pretty much a given.

[G-spotter]

It says it is not representative *of all*.

But that it is a reliable indication of the global trend.

 

If you sampled 1,000 Americans at random, it would be a reliable indication of the obesity problem, but it might not represent the anorexics very well. You might need a sample size of 10,000 to represent the prevalence of American anorexia.

 

Same deal here. All the sampled glaciers are melting at an increasing rate. This does not mean that every single glacier on Earth is melting at an increasing rate but it captures the global trend very well. A larger sample than the number of glaciers sampled would be necessary to asccurately state the global trend at which the rate of melt is increasing. This only estimates it.

 

 

[mountainmatt]

The same kind of stats could be done on the people that post here...

[ClimbingPanther]

On the bright side, we're making sure no tree will ever starve again.

[underworld]

Underworld, you're falling behind in your talking points. A global warming trend is pretty much accepted as a fact by most parties, your fallback position now is that it's not necessarily human induced, therefore we don't need to change anything we do. Note that the effect on glaciers is pretty much a given.

 

i've never said we don't need to change anything. whether it is agreed that it is human induced or not - i agree that clean air is better than dirty air and we should take steps accordingly.

 

my beef, not so much with this article, is that we don't much get to hear the other side of the story. we hear about the 'cure-alls' and some bandaids as well...but rarely do we hear what the costs of those actually are.

 

what is happening to the glaciers - so, yeah, i can't argue (based on what is reported) that the significant trend of the earths glaciers is that they are declining in size (whatever parameter you choose). what this means for human life as we know it...geeez who knows. i doubt it is as doom and gloom as it is reported.

[underworld]

It says it is not representative *of all*.

But that it is a reliable indication of the global trend.

 

If you sampled 1,000 Americans at random, it would be a reliable indication of the obesity problem, but it might not represent the anorexics very well. You might need a sample size of 10,000 to represent the prevalence of American anorexia.

 

Same deal here. All the sampled glaciers are melting at an increasing rate. This does not mean that every single glacier on Earth is melting at an increasing rate but it captures the global trend very well. A larger sample than the number of glaciers sampled would be necessary to asccurately state the global trend at which the rate of melt is increasing. This only estimates it.

 

 

right, but people lose sight of the 'estimate' part and try and hardline it as fact. that such-and-such will be underwater by year 2xxx.

[ClimbingPanther]

I'm just eagerly counting the days before I can grow a papaya in my back yard. During winter.

[Alpinfox]

what this means for human life as we know it...geeez who knows.

 

It means we won't have glaciers to hike/climb on, look at, enjoy. Etc. I think that's pretty sad. It may not be "doom", but I think there is plenty of "gloom" in the forecast.

[underworld]

yeah, for us...

 

i mean, we can think back to the good ol days like our grandpas did/do.

 

 

but there will always be something to enjoy - with the right attitude, that is.

 

 

[chucK]

I totally agree that the costs of doing "something" about global warming should be reported. It's a bit tough to do as I'm not sure there is a clear or uniform plan on what that "something" might be.

 

But if some plans were proposed, reporting on possible costs might actually help the public understand what is going on. They would more clearly see that there is a motive for the GOP and their big industry constituents to be foot-dragging on all this.

[ClimbingPanther]

It means we won't have glaciers to...

irrigate WA state crops during the summer & fall, provide continuous water for an ever-growing population, etc. The ramifications of losing our glaciers really suck any way you look at it. More huge reservoirs/dams will be needed, and that will only help if the precipitation keeps up the pace.

[G-spotter]

my beef, not so much with this article, is that we don't much get to hear the other side of the story. we hear about the 'cure-alls' and some bandaids as well...but rarely do we hear what the costs of those actually are.

 

There is a 'cost' to doing nothing too. When you complain about the costs of fighting climate change, don't forget the cost of doing nothing, in terms of ever-increasing weather related insurance and repair bills, increased health care costs as tropical diseases move north, things like that. Cost of all those flooded beach houses. Cost of moving the population of Bangladesh, Netherlands, Florida, Now Orleans, Nauru, etc. to higher ground (you think carving Israel out of Palestine was destabilizing to global peace and prosperity, just wait till they have to carve a new Bangladesh out of India.)

[underworld]

we hear about the costs of doing nothing all the time. that's my point - it's the only cost reported.

 

 

[underworld]

It means we won't have glaciers to...

irrigate WA state crops during the summer & fall, provide continuous water for an ever-growing population, etc. The ramifications of losing our glaciers really suck any way you look at it. More huge reservoirs/dams will be needed, and that will only help if the precipitation keeps up the pace.

 

conservation of mass... the world will always have the same amount of water. whether it is stored as ice or stored as water or stored as gas - we'll find a way to use it. humans have always found a way.

[jordop]

What I find so fascinating is how this has recently come to such prominence all of a sudden, despite the "issue" being a minor, lingering story for years. After Kyoto was tossed around and tossed out, why is it now such a critical point on both sides of the border so that it now easily trumps national security as the "big deal". These things snowball in such brutal and magical ways . . .

[G-spotter]

we hear about the costs of doing nothing all the time. that's my point - it's the only cost reported.

 

 

But do we hear it with dollar signs attached?

 

You know, a news story that said "Although oil companies might see their profits fall by 2% if this carbon tax was imposed, this will offset the public cost of $12 trillion/year that climate change would impose without the carbon tax"?

[G-spotter]

It means we won't have glaciers to...

irrigate WA state crops during the summer & fall, provide continuous water for an ever-growing population, etc. The ramifications of losing our glaciers really suck any way you look at it. More huge reservoirs/dams will be needed, and that will only help if the precipitation keeps up the pace.

 

conservation of mass... the world will always have the same amount of water. whether it is stored as ice or stored as water or stored as gas - we'll find a way to use it. humans have always found a way.

 

And that's why there are no water shortages anywhere in the world, right. Because we are so good at making do

[ClimbingPanther]

conservation of mass... the world will always have the same amount of water. whether it is stored as ice or stored as water or stored as gas - we'll find a way to use it. humans have always found a way.

not true. this doesn't have anything to do with global warming, but I can't resist

that's not even close to a correct interpretation of that law. a simple electrochemical reaction will split water into hydrogen and oxygen gas. combustion of a hydrocarbon and oxygen generates water. water is not conserved, only the mass/energy contained in it.

second, even though simple chemistry leaves the atoms & electrons intact, there are other forces at work in the world. nuclear fission is based on converting actual mass to energy, essentially removing parts of the atom from existence by changing its form to electromagnetic radiation.

[underworld]

"a simple electrochemical reaction will split water into hydrogen and oxygen gas. combustion of a hydrocarbon and oxygen generates water. water is not conserved, only the mass/energy contained in it. "

 

right...it's always there in some form