The Himalayas Are in Even Worse Shape Than We Thought (outsideonline.com) 245
New research shows just how much global warming is eating away at the glaciers on the world's highest peaks. From a report: A new study published this week in Science Advances offers one of the most comprehensive views of what's happening to the glaciers in the Himalayas -- and what it means for the people who live below them. The study, led by Joshua Maurer, a Ph.D. candidate at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, analyzed 40 years worth of satellite images of around 650 glaciers across more than 1,200 miles of India, China, Nepal, and Bhutan. One of the largest ice loss studies to date (in both area and timespan), it not only confirms that climate change is the main contributing factor to glacial retreat in high-mountain Asia, but also reveals how fast rising temperatures are changing the face of the planet. According to the study, glaciers in the region have been losing the equivalent of more than a vertical foot and a half of ice each year since the turn of the millennia -- which is twice the rate of melting between 1975 to 2000.
Do something (Score:1, Insightful)
And yet nothing is being done or going to be done to actually reduce the problem, humans. Less humans = less problems
Being allowed to freely birth new babies should not be a right.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you want to preach world population control, then you should lead by example and prove it.
Re:Do something (Score:4, Funny)
For some reason, every time I bring up the subject of dispersing Ebola throughout a city, I get a visit from men in black suits.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For some reason, every time I bring up the subject of dispersing Ebola throughout a city, I get a visit from men in black suits.
That's funny, because when I bring up the subject I get a visit from women wearing white suits. Do those men in black bring you a chocolate brownie with powered sugar sprinkled on top? That's what I get from those women, they tell me it will make me feel better.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to preach world population control, then you should lead by example and prove it.
I have a better ideal. Let's just not worry about it and let it take care of itself. We can just continue on with business as usual and see where it takes us. You see, at some point overpopulation will be corrected. The question is do we want to correct it, or let nature correct it?
You're choice. Personally, I'm just as happy to sit back and see where this ride will take us.
Re: (Score:3)
Well you can cut the population by pushing freedom, freedom for girls to get educated and freedom for young women to acquire and use birth control. Or you can push ignorance and business as usual.
I'm weird but would rather see more freedom.
Re: (Score:3)
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/5/22/17376536/fertility-rate-united-states-births-women>Done.
Got another snappy demand that'll blow up on you to make?
Re: (Score:2)
I have one, let's lower the immigration rate too.
US census says we are gaining another person in the USA every 14 seconds.
https://www.census.gov/popcloc... [census.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe instead of immigrants we could encourage people to have more children?
Maybe have a system where it isn't going to potentially cost thousands and thousands of dollars just to get it delivered. That might help birth rates a touch.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
If you want to preach world population control, then you should lead by example and prove it.
Clearly you haven't heard of The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement [vhemt.org].
Also, many gays and lesbians aren't producing kids (yes, I realize some use surrogates/donors to have children), so that's reason enough to be accepting of their "lifestyle", for anyone who feels there are too many people on this planet.
Re: (Score:2)
What would an secular monastery look like?
That's like asking what a square circle would look like.
Let's see if I get this straight. You define a monastery as a community of celibate men and women that gathered together to serve society. They took this vow of celibacy to free themselves of the confines of a family in order to improve the lives of those that didn't make the same choice.
Okay then, what would drive such people to do this? If it isn't some god as defined by one religion or another then it's just a creation of another god to serve. C
Re: (Score:2)
To remove religion from a monastery means removing the very reason for it to exist.
There are plenty of monasteries that have nothing to do with religion, and also have nothing to do with helping families or humans around thrm. E.G. monastries for Zen meditation, or martial arts.
Re: (Score:2)
Zen is a way of meditation.
While its roots are in Buddhism, it has nothing to do with Buddhism.
I don't even know what you mean by a martial art "monastery". You mean a karate club?
No, I mean a monastery. Like e.g. the Shaolin temple, facepalm.
Where the people in the community learn how to be more physically fit and how to defend themselves? This has no benefit to the people and families around it?
You are good in twisting words. But no, if I go to the temple and learn "self defense" (hint: self defense and m
Re: (Score:2)
terminate elderly retaliative
LOL wait, did you accidentally tell us what you really think?
Re: (Score:2)
There was a report recently that reckons population will peak and then decrease due to lower birth rates. Thats why most old world countries love immigrants as their indigenous populations are having low birth rates.
Re: Do something (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But wasn't there an article here just the other day that had studies that showed the birthrate for the globe is actually starting to fall?
It said the trend is already reversing.
So, hey, look at the bright side of this warming of the Himalayas......LESS people will likely die trying to climb Mt. Everest!!
Re:Do something (Score:4, Informative)
From 2009
https://foreignpolicy.com/2009/11/18/the-population-implosion/ [foreignpolicy.com]
From 2016
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23231001-400-the-world-in-2076-the-population-bomb-did-go-off-but-were-ok/?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter/ [newscientist.com]
There are a number of articles out there that predict that the world population will decline all by itself
Re: (Score:2)
It could be sped up, education and access to birth control works well.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet nothing is being done or going to be done to actually reduce the problem, humans. Less humans = less problems
Being allowed to freely birth new babies should not be a right.
In other words, if we become extinct, climate change would become just an academic problem or something similar to the earth's own evolution (from the Ice Age). Most of the world's population problems are a result of humans living longer. If we can get all the geezers worldwide (anyone 50+) hooked on fentanyl, that should solve this issue of climate change. Shouldn't it? Since fewer millenials these days are either marrying nor reproducing
This is great news! (Score:4, Funny)
That means all the Yuppie and YOLO crowd can now get up there and take selfies without having to trudge over thousands of feet of glacier ice! Shoot, now they can just pave a road right to the top and you can drive up there now.
Re: (Score:2)
Pressurized aerial tramway, you won't even need to get out. You can have a flexible rubber boot on the bottom, so you can reach your "feet" down to "touch" the top.
Earth (Score:1)
Warms and cools all the time. It's the height of human arrogance and hubris to think we're the one responsible for the current warming trend.
India soon to be most populous (Score:5, Interesting)
Not for nothing but this article popped up today about Chennai running out of water this season: https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/19... [cnn.com]
And the UN is reporting that by 2027, India will have more people than China. Say what you want about China, but they defused their population time bomb and developed a third world economy into what will likely be the worlds largest economy around 2030.
India needs some serious work otherwise the conjunction of worsening climate (for them) and population growth will be the makings of a real-life Soylent Green movie.
Re: (Score:2)
Himalayas are In Great Shape (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The cycle of forming and melting creates much of the erosion, so accelerating the cycle doesn't reduce that. Much of the gravels and stuff under the glaciers will now move down the mountain, exposing new surfaces and preparing another cycle of erosion.
What slows erosion is a more stable climate.
Confirms? (Score:2)
it not only confirms that climate change is the main contributing factor to glacial retreat in high-mountain Asia, but also reveals how fast rising temperatures are changing the face of the planet.
I didn't read TFA or the study, just the top of this page. I'm not denying climate change... Just curious about this statement. What did the study use to confirm climate change is indeed the main contributing factor? It certainly confirms temperature changes and glacial retreat.... And common sense (for some) would lead to climate change being the likely culprit.... But if it confirms it, I'm assuming it would have to have some kind of measurement it used? (other than the glaciers being smaller)
Re: (Score:2)
Affects the Venusian Doom delivery-date promises (Score:2)
Venusian Doom was promised by 2100 around 2009 or so. A couple of Carbon Cons later, and the collectivists promised Venusian Doom would be here by 2050.
Venusian Doom should arrive by 2030 or so now according to the trendy socialist-politicians in the west. I have seen no pushback from the alleged sober climate scientists about such outlandish claims, so they must be true.
So with just another couple papers from the climate scientists like this one (a couple drop every week), and Venusian Doom will have happe
Re: (Score:2)
"Venusian Doom"? Is that the next release from id Software?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Venusian Doom was promised by 2100 around 2009 or so.
No, it was not. Everyone with the slightest clue knows that Planet Earth has not enough CO2, or carbon, to ever be like Venus.
I like mine scrambled (Score:2)
40 years worth of satellite images (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Must be a slow news day. (Score:2)
So slow they have to make up the news.
I saw this article today. -> https://realclimatescience.com... [realclimatescience.com]
weather stations on the Yukon River, in the Arctic, have reported temperatures of more than 100 in the shade
When was that news posted? 30th of April, 1937.
You want to convince me this melting in the Himalayas is not fake news? Then tell me we should be building nuclear power plants in the USA to reduce the threat of global warming. That's it. I'll go along so long as it gets me nuclear power plants. If we can't have nuclear power plants then global warming must be less of a risk that nuclear power. That's
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That article is an amazing mix of truth with cherry picked data and lies.
Whatever. Don't care. All I really care about is making sure the USA continues to have inexpensive, reliable, and plentiful energy. Those that oppose nuclear power threaten that energy will continue to be inexpensive and plentiful. I'll play along with the global warming alarmists, just so long as it doesn't interfere with my standard of living. If the global warming alarmists agree to support nuclear power then we are just one small step from making global warming a solved problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why nuclear power?
Because nuclear power takes less resources per energy returned. Has lower CO2 emissions than anything else we have. And is far safer than anything else we have.
http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2... [blogspot.com]
Problems of waste and fuel supply have been solved. Issues of civilian nuclear power being a pathway to nuclear weapons or dirty bombs are just fearmongering.
http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2... [blogspot.com]
The claims we can supply the world with energy from wind and solar power have been proven to be false by pe
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks.
I appreciate the links, they do a great job of addressing the concerns I mentioned. I teach high school physics (and I teach high school physics teachers). I always make a strong case for nuclear, but had begun to waiver in my own personal enthusiasm for it with the rising costs of nuclear and falling costs of solar and wind and batteries and other storage...
But these sources have renewed my enthusiasm for nuclear!
Now
How do we build new nuclear reactors in the current political climate so we can save
Re: (Score:2)
How do we build new nuclear reactors in the current political climate so we can save the future global climate?
I've been listening to Scott Adam's podcast and he's mentioned nuclear power several times in the last few weeks. He seems to think that the political climate is shifting in favor of nuclear power. The Green New Deal that so many politicians have stated support for just days, hours, or even minutes, ago just fell flat. Very few people take it seriously, and part of that is because it proposes abandoning nuclear power. Politicians are picking up real quick on the reality that without nuclear power the Am
Re: (Score:2)
No nuclear power has been built in the States in a while, but Canada has been building CANDU reactors in India, Pakistan, China... steadily since the late 1970's.
https://cna.ca/technology/ener... [cna.ca]
and rebuilding our own.
The most recent CANDU was just started in 2018 in Argentina.
The expertise is alive and well.
This reactor style is favoured for use in countries like India because it can be built in a way that uses up the plutonium, so they can't use their nuclear power plant to make enriched plutonium for nuc
Re: (Score:2)
You sig made me think...and though this is off the rails, so might be flame bait, I feel like we mostly have like minds so your sig intrigues me as I find it profoundly wrong.
I am free because my neighbors are not armed (at least not armed like your neighbors are).
Free from feeling like I need to arm myself to protect myself, free from an arms race where I need bigger guns then my neighbors... who need bigger guns then me..., free to send my kids to school with a tiny fraction of the risk your kids bear.
I t
Re: (Score:2)
We have ways to use the spent fuel now with next gen plants that will virtually eliminate our need to store waste
I really wonddr where this myth comes from-
So you want to tell me: you can eat endlessly. You never produce shit, because 'you burn' everything?
So to where does the material, the matter, the atoms magically go?
Re: (Score:2)
It seems your definition of myth is that: any knowledge you personally do not yet possess is a myth.
So let me demythify this for you.
A fast neutron reactor can utilize spent fuel and nuclear waste from a conventional nuclear reactor. The fast neutrons have a sufficient cross section to be captured by the mix of actinides that are in spent nuclear waste without needing to separate them ahead of time.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/i... [world-nuclear.org]
Once captured by the nuclei these neutrons can induce new fission reactions,
Re: (Score:2)
That does not make the waste go away.
Idiot.
You have to add new fissionable material and you have to remove something from the reactor, otherwise there is no room to add anything.
So: where does the waste magically go?
Hu?
Re: (Score:2)
This is a new type of reactor.
You take the waste from the old reactors, that right now we are just storing, and you use that waste in the new reactor. This is explained in the link I sourced.
This means we no longer have to store the waste from the old reactors for thousands of years, instead what was waste becomes fuel for a new type of reactor.
You seem really slow, so I will try to explain it slower in case that still doesn't make sense:
We have nuclear reactors right now that make waste.
That waste is dange
Re:Why do you value ice more than life? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, maybe. However, we cannot predict where the increased rainfall will occur or even if it will occur or even if it will match what was lost or even at what times of the year it will occur. So if it occurs for one month and complete compensates for the now missing runoff, it means nasty flood.
The thing about glacier run off is that it is modulated to run mostly in the summer. All very nice and tidy for farming. It helps to consider what you don't know before explaining in precise terms you know nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like we should replace the glaciers with man-made lakes. Same water storage and controlled release when needed, recreation areas, and hydropower. The main downsides of man-made lakes aren't an issue if you are using former glacial valleys.
Re: (Score:3)
"You may need to shift farming regions but people have been doing that as long as there have been people."
56% of India's population is farmers and the average income for a farmer in India converts to less than $1,500 a year https://www.ibef.org/industry/... [ibef.org] . Basically Indian farmers are extremely poor and their are a shit ton of them, but anyone with any basic knowledge of the world should already know that. So if this is the case, how on earth will large portions of them just magically find new places to
Re:Why do you value ice more than life? (Score:4, Informative)
This month 15 hottest cities in the world recorded 120+ F temperatures. All of them were in Pakistan and India which are getting fed by these glaciers. More than 95% of the population is not staying close to glaciers where they are happy to see warm weather. They are in the hot area where the water is fed by glaciers. If they melt away, they won't get water during non rainy season.
Re:Why do you value ice more than life? (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently you lack an understanding between "climate" and localized weather. Akin to those who are like, "it's getting colder for me! Obviously global warming is a hoax!"
The problem isn't just the glaciers. The problem is what the melting glaciers are indicative of. It's one of the many signals of the serious problems on the way. The glaciers are melting fast because global warming is real, and happening even faster than predicted. Cheering for the "longer growing season" demonstrates the same short-sighted, narrow-minded thinking championed by so many head-in-the-sand global-warming deniers.
So you get longer growing seasons, but:
- the ecosystem gets screwed up, so now the bees are gone and can't pollinate your crops
- Sea levels are rising which are threatening millions who live on ocean coasts
- Rising temps are disrupting wildlife and resulting in catastrophic collapse of many populations, which will have a chain-reaction in the food chain
- rising temps are resulting in severe, extended droughts. Kind of makes it hard to take advantage of your new "longer growing season" if there's no rain.
- The rising temps are causing some invasive and destructive species of insects to now explode in population, decimating forests and also disrupting the ecosystem and food chain. Also the growing mosquito population is resulting in a surge of malaria and zika.
- hurricanes and other storms are growing stronger and more destructive, causing massive loss of life and devastation of towns and cities, many lacking the resources to rebuild which can reach the billions of dollars
- the hotter and drier seasons are resulting in a growing number of destructive wildfires which are causing massive damage to towns and cities
- rising ocean temperatures are destroying corals, shellfish, and phytoplankton. These are the base of the food chain, and their destruction will trickle up in a chain reaction.
But at least you get another month or two to grow corn, right?
Re: (Score:1)
Also ocean pH is changing!
Re: (Score:2)
But at least you get another month or two to grow corn, right?
I hate corn! We've gotta reverse it as hard as possible now!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The glaciers are the source of water for them and likewise in much of the world. Between the groundwater running out and rivers drying up, farming becomes harder, especially during the dry season.
Re: Is melting glaciers actually bad? (Score:1)
Well, I doubt any climate professors are going to go way out of their way to present to people who wouldn't believe it anyway.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm willing to believe. But not without answers to these questions.
No, it isn't just a given that melting glaciers is bad. I want answers.
But what do I get instead? Name calling, belittlement, insults, death threats...
You know what makes me think?
It makes me think AGW alarmists are merely cult members instead of rational thinkers who're simply applying the scientific method.
Now what do you think my reaction is going to be when these, as I perceive them to be, cult members want to start enacting public polic
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
thanks, I didn't realize I had it set to HTML...I posted a fixed up version.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry for the poor formatting. Here is the same response with some fixed typos and better formatting:
Greetings AC
As a rationale thinker, and a person who has been personally convinced by critical analysis of evidence, I will do my best to respond, though I am not a climate scientist.
As you are reading 1 you might want to refer down to 2 where a sample of some of the sources I used are listed.
1. This is bad because:
a. There are billions of people who rely on the water coming from these glaciers, the glaciers
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you. We need all solutions, including nuclear power. I am convinced that if we had a stronger education system that better taught the physics or nuclear energy and radiation we would have a population that supports nuclear power. Alas our education systems have not been able to accomplish this and irrational fear has consumed us. We can't even teach people simple things, like how vaccines are safe and effective. If we can't do that I am not sure we will ever get the population to support nuclear power not matter how safe we make it.
There it is, now let's have more nuclear power before global warming gets any worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mostly not nuclear power because its not economically viable. It looks good on paper until you have to deal with the expensive reality of what to do with the waste. Remember this isnt even the spent fuel we're talking about but the large mass of things from trash to tools to clothing that gets irradiated as a matter of course while the plant is in service.
Nuclear power is more expensive than global warming?
Okay, you lost me. Global warming must be a hoax if this is the best you got to explain why we can't have nuclear power.
Re: (Score:2)
But nuclear power is already in use, what do you mean?
What I mean are plans like the Green New Deal that explicitly oppose the use of nuclear power. The video you linked to is why the future will include more nuclear power. There simply is no other option but to build more new nuclear power plants. Denying this is denying the threat global warming poses, or is mental illness.
Re: (Score:3)
These are exactly the type of questions teenagers ask their parents when they explain about danger of speed to driving. Well eventually Darwin takes care of some of them.
Re: (Score:1)
You didn't answer the questions.
Instead you belittled me by comparing me to a teenager, implied that my questions were stupid, and implied that my death would be a good thing.
How very scientific and enlightened of you. This totally proves that AGW alarmists are in the right.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot that a lot of people depend on drinking water that originates in glaciers.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You're right, at least half is also caused by women.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, at least half is also caused by women.
What, global warming, or the existence of Sherpas? (probably right in both cases of course..)
Re:hard evidence (Score:4, Informative)
See now this is hard evidence about global warming. Not any of that manipulated temperature crap.
Long-term ice is a natural implementation of a moving average, not fooled by short-term changes in local weather.
I have seen glacial retreat in the deep south, at Franz Josef, and in the far north at Svinajokull. I'm about to see more of it, in Alaska.
Re:hard evidence (Score:4, Informative)
See now this is hard evidence about global warming.
If you want more hard evidence, there is a million square kilometers of open water in the Arctic sea that used to be permanent ice pack.
Not any of that manipulated temperature crap.
Richard Muller [wikipedia.org], one of the most prominent skeptics, conducted an in-depth study funded by the Koch brothers, and found that the temperature records were generally accurate. He did find that predictions of more severe storms were not support by evidence.
The Conversion of a Climate Change Skeptic [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Building on land that used to be permafrost might turn out to be almost exactly like building on open water; the whole road is a bridge, and it needs a lot more maintenance than a short bridge would.
Re: hard evidence (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You must live under a rock.
In summer it is already the case, and in winter it is unlikely to be ever the case.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I hope your sophomore year is going well.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
By what standard are the Himalayas "worse?"
The same standard where ~30 years ago the government posted signs in Glacier National Park [pc.gc.ca] out in Alberta saying that all the glaciers would be gone by 2020, and that their loss was "unprecedented." Needless to say, the glaciers are still there, some have increased in size and mass. And they pulled down all the signs earlier this year and printed new ones saying that "there's no clear estimate of their loss" and other stuff like that.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I like the apparent citation to lend your post an air of legitimacy. Of course that's all it's there for. You didn't have a link for your actual claim, so I call bullshit.
In fairness you used to post incoherent rambles with tons of irrelevant links so either you're or it's not mushroom season at the moment.
Re: (Score:2)
I like the apparent citation to lend your post an air of legitimacy. Of course that's all it's there for. You didn't have a link for your actual claim, so I call bullshit.
Just because I'm gonna let you find the ones for Canada on your own, here's the ones from the US where the same thing happened. [dailycaller.com]
I like the apparent citation to lend your post an air of legitimacy. Of course that's all it's there for. You didn't have a link for your actual claim, so I call bullshit.
Some people might enjoy that you don't have the basic skills to function in an information heavy society with reams of information at your fingertips. Cultivating the skills to do-so otherwise is far more valuable, of course you'll have problems with the people that like their highly selected information, in bite size child-like proportions.
In fairness you used to post incoherent rambles with tons of irrelevant links so either you're or it's not mushroom season at the moment.
Coming from a person that thinks fbi.gov
Re: (Score:2)
Coming from a person that thinks fbi.gov links are scams and malware,
Huh looks like I was wrong about mushroom season being over. It seems like your hallucinations are powerful today.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh looks like I was wrong about mushroom season being over. It seems like your hallucinations are powerful today.
Strange, 'cause I can simply fire your UN through a search engine and it kicks up plenty of results from several years ago with you freaking out over it. Maybe you should try that on your own.
Re: (Score:2)
Needless to say, the glaciers are still there, some have increased in size and mass
WRONG. Try actually looking at the data. [usgs.gov] It turns out that the data paint a very different picture than your post.
Sure, the estimates for when they'd be gone were wrong, but the future is notoriously difficult to predict. At the same time, there is ample data, from many sources, all over the globe that tell the same story - the planet is warming quickly at an unprecedented rate [xkcd.com]. Even if we can't predict everything with complete accuracy, doesn't it make sense to err on the side of not fucking up the on
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is the simple version of Worse :
Current Human Habitable environment for max sustainable population
[***********] = best
Future Environment with too much GW ( x= dead humans)
xxxxxxx [*** ] = worse
(Due to Increased conflict from shortages,
lack of food from natural disasters,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Here is some data to demonstrate how wrong you are.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/an... [carbonbrief.org]
The 'trash' models were in fact very accurate. The 'crazy' predictions are very specific and turned out to be very accurate.
Our modelling has gotten better because science is open minded, now we are even more confident in our current predictions.
Sea level rise is over 8 inches in 140 years: https://www.carbonbrief.org/an... [carbonbrief.org]
What is alarming is not the fact that it is mm/yr on average, but rather that it is accelerating.
And ju
Re: (Score:2)
So, would you say it's better, then? That Earth is regressing to the norm by getting so hot that it can no longer sustain (at least human) life?
Oh bullshit. Bullshit piled on bullshit. When every ounce of carbon in the ground is free in the atmosphere, you get inland seas and dinosaurs as big as buildings. There is nothing at all about that period of Earth's history that is unusually inimical to human life. Unless you think Brazil is currently uninhabitable? I've got news for you. Lots of people live in rain forests already. A few more won't change that.
I don't get your logic.
Because you're not using logic. You're using religious convictions you don't understand.
Re: (Score:2)