Melting glaciers, Climate Change, and no mo water.....

[wacki]

I don't know that much geology and this is starting lots of controversy. A little help Zeno?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4639179.stm

Ancient mountain glacier in danger
By Roger Harrabin
BBC correspondent

"Glaciers are vital for their contribution to water supplies
Scientists in India have warned that the ancient glacier that feeds the holy river Ganges is likely to melt down before the end of the century.

They say it could disappear even faster if climate change speeds up. They say man-made carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are almost certainly to blame for the current level of warming.

They are worried because the glaciers are vital for their contribution to water supplies to many millions of people in the Himalayan region.

Some scientists say the effects of glacial meltdown could stretch to billions of people in one of the most densely populated areas of the planet.

'Exaggerated claim'

A study for the UK government Department for International Development (Dfid) concluded that this figure was probably exaggerated because it is only in the mountains that the rivers are mostly dependent on glacial melt. On the plains, rivers are fed much more by the monsoons.

Local farmers are struggling to cope with water shortages
But head of the intergovernmental panel on climate change Dr RK Pachauri told the BBC's Newsnight programme that climate change was predicted to disrupt monsoon rains. Combined with glacial meltdown this will leave people doubly vulnerable, he said.

The Nepali government is calling on rich nations to reduce their CO2 emissions.

Nepal is already suffering the effects of rapid warming in the mountains.

The director of hydrology Dr Madan Shrestra told Newsnight that river flow has increased because glaciers are melting twice as fast as previously.

Highly unstable

Some Nepali glaciers have already melted into lakes. The water is trapped behind walls of debris scoured by the glacier.

Glacial rock dams like this are highly unstable. One rock dam burst sweeping away homes and a power plant. The Nepali government want to lower the water level of hundreds of new glacial lakes. But it's expensive, and they cannot afford it.

Nepal does produce carbon dioxide emissions of its own. But the average Nepali creates five per cent of the CO2 produced by the average American.

Nepali campaigners are trying to take legal action to get redress from rich nations for the damage they've caused to the climate.

This may be a long shot. But if it fails there's another small attempt being made on the international stage.

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (Unesco) will soon consider a plea to have part of the mountain chain turned into a world heritage site.

In theory that might leave all the member governments of Unesco liable if the environment there is being damaged."

[hobbsmann]

I'll preface my reply to this by saying that as a PhD student in atmospheric chemistry I'm probably considered liberal and an environmentalist by most, and am for for mass reductions of various harmful pollutants globally. That being said, it is pretty much well accepted in the field that an increase in the amount of greenhouse gases corresponds to an increase in the Earth's average temperature due to increased absorption of long wave radiation leaving the surface.

While it is known that more GHGs increases temperature there is still a lot of debate among people studying climate dynamics as to how the Earth's complex system will react to this increase in temperature. Currently, there isn't one universally accept theory on glacial cycles (ie. why ice ages occur once ever 100k years) and from ice and sediment core records geologists have a decent understanding of temperature variations over the last many millions of years. Since we can't really predict how these temp changes drive glacial ablation and accumulation it is pretty naive to blaim a possible melting of an entire glacier on a spike in antropogenic CO2 emissions (I'm not saying it's not possible, just the science is kind of fishy).

Also, this article seems to be citing a study that is probably a 'worst' case scenario which involves further increases in CO2 emissions as well as favorable (as far as glacial melting goes) assumptions about how the Earth's system will respond to an increase in temperature.

Main point: this study could be just as realistic as that global warming movie that came out a couple of years ago (NY freezing over...)

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll preface my reply to this by saying that as a PhD student in atmospheric chemistry I'm probably considered liberal and an environmentalist by most, and am for for mass reductions of various harmful pollutants globally. That being said, it is pretty much well accepted in the field that an increase in the amount of greenhouse gases corresponds to an increase in the Earth's average temperature due to increased absorption of long wave radiation leaving the surface.

While it is known that more GHGs increases temperature there is still a lot of debate among people studying climate dynamics as to how the Earth's complex system will react to this increase in temperature. Currently, there isn't one universally accept theory on glacial cycles (ie. why ice ages occur once ever 100k years) and from ice and sediment core records geologists have a decent understanding of temperature variations over the last many millions of years. Since we can't really predict how these temp changes drive glacial ablation and accumulation it is pretty naive to blaim a possible melting of an entire glacier on a spike in antropogenic CO2 emissions (I'm not saying it's not possible, just the science is kind of fishy).

Also, this article seems to be citing a study that is probably a 'worst' case scenario which involves further increases in CO2 emissions as well as favorable (as far as glacial melting goes) assumptions about how the Earth's system will respond to an increase in temperature.

Main point: this study could be just as realistic as that global warming movie that came out a couple of years ago (NY freezing over...)

[/ QUOTE ]

I like your post. I consider myself a aspiring environmentalist. I believe in energy efficiency and not polluting. BUT, I'm having trouble with the whole Global Warming thing. I just don't see the evidence YET. Not that it isn't there, just don't think we have enough data to make the claims:

So here is the question.

Why shouldn’t I believe Sen. Inhofe on Global Warming?

Evidence is Underwhelming (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-06-14-oppose_x.htm)
Climate Speech (http://inhofe.senate.gov/pressreleases/climateupdate.htm)

And why shouldn’t believe David Wojick:

Another Global Warming Scare (http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17190)
Do Scientists Have Compelling Evidence Of Global Warming (http://www.insightmag.com/media/paper441/news/2001/03/12/Symposium/Q.Do-Scientists.Have.Compelling.Evidence.Of.Global.Warm ing-213462.shtml)


I'm trying to figure out the truth and what I believe on the matter.

Thanks.

-Gryph

[hobbsmann]

[ QUOTE ]

I like your post. I consider myself a aspiring environmentalist. I believe in energy efficiency and not polluting. BUT, I'm having trouble with the whole Global Warming thing. I just don't see the evidence YET. Not that it isn't there, just don't think we have enough data to make the claims:


[/ QUOTE ]
Before I read some of these links you posted I'll respond quickly about global warming and be a little more careful with my word choice.

The physics behind why an increase in greenhouse gases in the startosphere directly causes an increase in the surface temperature of the Earth is well known and fairly simple. It is known that a CO2 molecule effectively absorbs longwave radiation (this is essentially the sun's input bounced back to space) and then will emit some of that back towards the Earth's surface. The direct effect of this emmision is an increase in temperature and this is what most people call 'global warming', but there are so many finer and unknown details that could possibily have a balancing or even greater cooling effect.


(this is a link to a popular feedback loop proposed in the late 80s called the CLAW hypothesis that supposedly the Earth will kept itself in balance) CLAW hypothesis (http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/0,55a304092d09/3__Gases_from_phytoplankton/-_GAIA_and_CLAW_p1.html)

Because there are so many indirect effects that are pretty much unquantifiable using an ambiguous statement like 'global warming' without speaking of specifics doesn't tell you too much. From one your links a MIT prof. put it pretty well:

"Science, in the public arena, is commonly used as a source of authority with which to bludgeon political opponents and propagandize uninformed citizens. ... A fairer view of the science will show that there is still a vast amount of uncertainty — far more than advocates of Kyoto would like to acknowledge."

Recap:

What is known: increasing CO2 will directly cause an increase in temperature.

what is unknown: The net temperature change when the entire Earth system is taken into account.

I'm working on bettering our understanding of the direct radiative effect of aerosols and if your interested at all I've post links to descriptions of my project.

the model we use (http://www.as.harvard.edu/chemistry/trop/index.html)

Importance of phase and project overview (http://www.deas.harvard.edu/environmental-chemistry/projects/aerosol1.php)

[etgryphon]

Good. Thats what I thought. The science is proven just not its effect on the world yet.

-Gryph

[phage]

Did you happen to read the three part series on climate change that ran recently in the New Yorker. If so, any thoughts?

[hobbsmann]

no, do you have a link to it by any chance?

[luckyharr]

[ QUOTE ]
no, do you have a link to it by any chance?

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny, I was going mention these articles. I have the links handy because I've been forwarding to many friends.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050425fa_fact3



http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050502fa_fact3



http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050509fa_fact3


I was unaware of things like the melting permafrost in Fairbanks and phenomena like feedback. It will be interesting to hear what an expert thinks of these articles.

[phage]

Here are the links I found:
part 1 (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050425fa_fact3)
Part 2 (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050502fa_fact3)
Part 3 (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050509fa_fact3)

All of these links were found here (http://resourceinsights.blogspot.com/2005/05/new-yorker-climate-change-series-part.html)

I found them to be very interesting...

[wacki]

Man gryph I thought you were smarter than that. I know for a fact you've read many of my threads so I can't believe you're saying what you're saying. I don't have time for this right now but either google C12 or do a search on 2+2. I've covered this stuff time and time again . Carbon 12/carbon14 ratios leave no doubt the atmosphere is changing due to fossil fuels. Their ability to trap heat is well documented in the lab. Want more proof? Well, we have to sacrifice the earth. Then we rebuild it and sacrifice it again. Now repeat 1,000 times and try to figure out if the statistical significance is more than just a correlation.

Ok I can uderstand you questioning how much it effects the earth but there is no doubt it is changing. As for your links.... well I've already covered those in previous threads.


Also:

http://parazen.bio.indiana.edu/me/climatechange/3-way.png

As for the senator inhofe. Man that guy cites Crichton as a credible source. A [censored] work of fiction is what he uses in a Senate speech. I've already covered the flaws in that book many times. Just do a search.

Also, this wasn't meant to be a Global warming debate. It was a specific question to Zeno about water flow. I was curious about the credibility of this info. I'm afraid this thread is lost.

[wacki]

Scientific measurements of levels of CO2 contained in cylinders of ice, called ice cores, indicate that the pre-industrial carbon dioxide level was 278 ppm. That level did not vary more than 7 ppm during the 800 years between 1000 and 1800 A.D.

Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased from about 315 ppm in 1958 to 378 ppm at the end of 2004, which means human activities have increased the concentration of atmospheric CO2 by 100 ppm or 36 percent.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2412.htm

Radioisotopes can confirm this extra C02 is fossil fuel based.

[BluffTHIS!]

I don't dispute the effects of climate change being produced primarily by industrialized nations, but I think it is a safe assumption that the U.S. and others aren't going to pay up. And the appropriate response for the Nepalis is the same as it has always been for humans in whatever age, adapt or move.

[Zeno]

Wacki, I'm very busy but will make some quick and dirty observations. All you have to do is pull gaging station data from all the feeder streams and rivers to the Ganges and make some historical comparisons, if possible. Quantity of data, accuracy, and other background information would be needed also to qualify the data set. As usual the historical data may not be all that reliable or there may not be enough of it to draw any solid conclusions - yet. If glaciers are indeed melting unusually fast then local natural water systems should be in a glut of water right now.

Edit: Getting more than just surface water data is necessary also, groundwater data (from wells)would be needed and also geomorphic data on streams and lakes etc.

There is also 'The Journal of Glaciology' a very reputable journal that may be a good source. I know you have access to a quality science library so getting it should be no problem. The part about the new forming glacial lakes is very interesting.

Mountain (or alpine) glaciers are ephemeral by nature so you would need to find out if this is historically signicant. And natural phenomena can be involved, besides man-induced changes, that may also be causing this - it is difficult to say what is the main driver without more and better information. There are many interactions and cycles in natural systems and rarely is something as simple as it seems or made out to be. I'll do some searches myself and see what I come up with. I'll be busy this weekend. If I find something interesting or significant I'll post a new thread.

I also don't want to get into a Global Warning ballyhoo again either.

-Zeno

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]
Man gryph I thought you were smarter than that.


[/ QUOTE ]

I had hope so also. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

I'm a born skeptic. I have to have it proved to me.

[ QUOTE ]

I know for a fact you've read many of my threads so I can't believe you're saying what you're saying.


[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't read any of your post on this issue.

[ QUOTE ]

I don't have time for this right now but either google C12 or do a search on 2+2. I've covered this stuff time and time again . Carbon 12/carbon14 ratios leave no doubt the atmosphere is changing due to fossil fuels. Their ability to trap heat is well documented in the lab. Want more proof? Well, we have to sacrifice the earth. Then we rebuild it and sacrifice it again. Now repeat 1,000 times and try to figure out if the statistical significance is more than just a correlation.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'll look into that. I just formulating my opinion right now.

[ QUOTE ]

Ok I can uderstand you questioning how much it effects the earth but there is no doubt it is changing. As for your links.... well I've already covered those in previous threads.


Also:

http://parazen.bio.indiana.edu/me/climatechange/3-way.png

As for the senator inhofe. Man that guy cites Crichton as a credible source. A [censored] work of fiction is what he uses in a Senate speech. I've already covered the flaws in that book many times. Just do a search.

Also, this wasn't meant to be a Global warming debate. It was a specific question to Zeno about water flow. I was curious about the credibility of this info. I'm afraid this thread is lost.

[/ QUOTE ]

My person belief is that the world is changing because of human activity because it intuitively makes sense and we shoudl do something now rather than later.

I just need to have facts to back it up not just because I believe it to be true.

I don't want to have my ideology run away with my reason or else I can't make intelligent arguments.

-Gryph

[junkmail3]

http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool.jpg

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]

I haven't read any of your post on this issue.


[/ QUOTE ]

My memory is g00t (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=2370550&page=&view=&s b=5&o=&vc=1)

[ QUOTE ]
I just need to have facts to back it up not just because I believe it to be true.

I don't want to have my ideology run away with my reason or else I can't make intelligent arguments.


[/ QUOTE ]

Good for you. Zeno and I have posted all the ammo you need in this board.