You would think news that there is still plenty of ice and it is in fact NOT melting as described would be welcome and good news. Apparently not.
Hi, All!
Well, it would be excellent news if we actually believed it. But some of us live within sight of mountains that in living memory used to have glaciers on them, and now no longer do.
Erey, you live in Texas, so you have to get your ice-melting news from other sources, and you have to trust scientists in other parts of the world to tell you what's really happening.
But I live in Washington and Oregon, so I can see the truth for myself. I don't have to trust scientists to tell me whether glaciers are melting, because if I'm curious about it, I can just look at the mountains in the distance. And if I want proof-positive, I can visit my local mountains to see it.
The thing is, glaciers leave evidence of their existence. They cover the mountainside, so nothing can grow under them; and when they melt, they leave stony glacial scree behind. Fragile alpine meadows take decades to get a start, so in the meantime, the naked glacial scree bears silent testimony to the glacier that was there.
In early September 2007 I was curious about the extent of ice remaining on Mt. Hood, so I visited there with my brother. We were both extremely depressed to see that the large glacier which formerly covered an entire side of the mountain had shrunk to a patch of ice only a few hundred feet across. The rest of the mountainside was bare.
My aunt lives in Anchorage AK, where villages are sinking into the swampy mud that used to be permafrost.
So, Erey-from-Texas, you can put your faith in and be comforted by the scientists from Arizona and Cambridge who insist that the problem is much smaller than reported -- nearly non-existent!
But me, I listen to the mountains... and they say we have a big problem.
Love,
-- Claudia
Well no offense Claudia but I am not going to believe it from you based on your observations. Nothing personal but it seems now there are disagreements in the scientific community. Evidentaly the data is wrong (not the first time). But take heart everyone, the world is STILL dying - just not as quickly as we had hoped in the OP.
You would think news that there is still plenty of ice and it is in fact NOT melting as described would be welcome and good news. Apparently not.
Hi, All!
Well, it would be excellent news if we actually believed it. But some of us live within sight of mountains that in living memory used to have glaciers on them, and now no longer do.
Erey, you live in Texas, so you have to get your ice-melting news from other sources, and you have to trust scientists in other parts of the world to tell you what's really happening.
But I live in Washington and Oregon, so I can see the truth for myself. I don't have to trust scientists to tell me whether glaciers are melting, because if I'm curious about it, I can just look at the mountains in the distance. And if I want proof-positive, I can visit my local mountains to see it.
The thing is, glaciers leave evidence of their existence. They cover the mountainside, so nothing can grow under them; and when they melt, they leave stony glacial scree behind. Fragile alpine meadows take decades to get a start, so in the meantime, the naked glacial scree bears silent testimony to the glacier that was there.
In early September 2007 I was curious about the extent of ice remaining on Mt. Hood, so I visited there with my brother. We were both extremely depressed to see that the large glacier which formerly covered an entire side of the mountain had shrunk to a patch of ice only a few hundred feet across. The rest of the mountainside was bare.
My aunt lives in Anchorage AK, where villages are sinking into the swampy mud that used to be permafrost.
So, Erey-from-Texas, you can put your faith in and be comforted by the scientists from Arizona and Cambridge who insist that the problem is much smaller than reported -- nearly non-existent!
But me, I listen to the mountains... and they say we have a big problem.
I don't see what is the point of these discussions on whether the planet is warming or not. It is like religion or poilitics. No one changes their views. It is too esoteric and totally unnecessary.
There is no need for fancy scientific measurements. The man made problems of the planet can be seen everywhere with the naked eyes: pollution everywhere, damning of rivers, deforestation, explotation of minerals, overfishing, animal extintion, destruction of ecosystems, millions of poison spewing cars, factories, airplanes, nuclear weapons, etc. which keeps growing exponentially, should be enough to understand what needs to be curtailed.
Education is the only long term solution. The problems exist becaue of humans dismal lack of understanding of their environment.
I do not doubt that climate change is happening, but considering that many scientists argue about how quickly the change is happening, & the greatest causes of said changes, I am not one to jump on this bandwagon that I have to stop using all oil-based products, give up my car/motorcycle & grab my picket sign that demands my country to make changes that would destroy much of our economy (whats left of it) - as 'Chicken Littles' do.
I pretty much agree and I don't see anyone here willing to make the real sacrifices Chicken Little demands they make. But they sure want to make everyone feel guilty about it.
You needn't be so defensive about it. Guilt is a strategy, sure, but if it doesn't work well for you, just ignore it and live by your own reasoning. Those you call "chicken little" often indeed are far from being a role model, with small 'carbon footprint'. Old hippies are prone to support ecological stances, but they also are partial to their 1970s Volkswagen gas guzzlers. For them, however, the guilt strategy works fine, overall. Doesn't mean you need to adopt it.
But the idea of getting rid of intensive fossil fuel consumption (and an environment-intensive lifestyle in general) is a generally good one. It cannot be done on an individual basis. We need to come together to create an infrastructure for sustainable living. And mutual demonising or ridicule doesn't help here.
I am extremely happy that this is consensus position in Germany now, from left to right. One important strategic element in this was, however, the Green party's decision to go for pragmatism and turn away from zero-compromise offensive guilt mongering.
“The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity” - Abraham Lincoln.
This year has been a very bad year, but not a record melt, according to all but one data record. The record year is still 2007. But that's hardly a reason to say there is no reason for concern, as 2011 certainly was among the three worst years (together with 2007 and 2008, as the graphs on the upper two links show).
Fair enough - but your analysis & links are far from what I consider the 'voice of Chicken Little'
I do not doubt that climate change is happening, but considering that many scientists argue about how quickly the change is happening, & the greatest causes of said changes, I am not one to jump on this bandwagon that I have to stop using all oil-based products, give up my car/motorcycle & grab my picket sign that demands my country to make changes that would destroy much of our economy (whats left of it) - as 'Chicken Littles' do.
I pretty much agree and I don't see anyone here willing to make the real sacrifices Chicken Little demands they make. But they sure want to make everyone feel guilty about it.
Evidentaly this finding of artic ice melting is hotly disputed by serious scientists.
Loaded language, Erey.
This article discusses the fact that scientists disagree on how accurate the measurements were.
Your implication that scientists who think ice melt an indication of climate change aren't "serious scientists" is biased.
Dot, I did not say they were not serious scientists, what I am saying is that it looks like their data is flawed.
Why this raging hostility if a person is not on the WORLD IS ENDING bandwagon and the very worst case senario?
Then why refer to those who disagree as "serious" scientists?
The scientists who took the measurements and based estimates upon them were quite serious, I'm sure, although possibly mistaken.
"Raging hostility" is still more loaded language.
Dot, I refer to them as "serious scientists" because A flippingNauseum anytime ANYONE regardless of prestigious degree from a well respected university DARES to contradict the HOLY Law of AGW they are IMMEDIATELY disregarded as not good scientists. Almost every fing time. So given the past history of the pattern on these boards I pre-empted that argument.
This year has been a very bad year, but not a record melt, according to all but one data record. The record year is still 2007. But that's hardly a reason to say there is no reason for concern, as 2011 certainly was among the three worst years (together with 2007 and 2008, as the graphs on the upper two links show).
Fair enough - but your analysis & links are far from what I consider the 'voice of Chicken Little'
I do not doubt that climate change is happening, but considering that many scientists argue about how quickly the change is happening, & the greatest causes of said changes, I am not one to jump on this bandwagon that I have to stop using all oil-based products, give up my car/motorcycle & grab my picket sign that demands my country to make changes that would destroy much of our economy (whats left of it) - as 'Chicken Littles' do.
