 | Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years. Thanks, CNET Support |
General discussion
Mountaineers testify to warming's effect
BEND, Ore. - Mountaineers are bringing back firsthand accounts of vanishing glaciers, melting ice routes, crumbling rock formations and flood-prone lakes where glaciers once rose.
The observations are transforming a growing number of alpine and ice climbers, some of whom have scientific training, into eyewitnesses of global warming. Increasingly, they are deciding not to leave it to scientists to tell the entire story.
"I personally have done a bunch of ice climbs around the world that no longer exist," said Yvon Chouinard, a renowned climber and surfer and founder of Patagonia, Inc., an outdoor clothing and gear company that champions the environment. "I mean, I was aghast at the change."
Chouinard pointed to recent trips where the ice had all but disappeared on the famous Diamond Couloir of 16,897-foot Mount Kenya, and snow was absent at low elevations on 4,409-foot Ben Nevis, Britain's highest peak, in the Highlands of northwest Scotland. He sees a role for climbers in debating climate change, even if their chronicles are unscientific.
"Most people don't care whether the ice goes or not, the kind of ice that we climb on and stuff," he said. But climbers' stories, he added, can "make it personal, instead of just scientists talking about it. Telling personal stories might hit home to some people."
Alpine climbers are worrying about the loss of classic routes and potential new lines up mountains that are melting, from the Cascades in the Pacific Northwest and the Alps in Europe to the Andes in South America and the Himalaya in Asia.
Their anecdotes often reflect what science is finding, but with stories and pictures from places where most scientists aren't able to reach.
"As climbers we see these places, we go all over the world," Mark Bowen, a climber and physicist who wrote a book on climate and mountains, told the American Alpine Club at its annual meeting last week in Bend.
"We're in touch with the natural world like few people are. We can see the changes better than most people can," he said.
Scientists and diplomats at an international conference in Belgium predicted on Friday that global warming would turn many glaciers to lakes and cause rock avalanches because of frozen ground melting up high. People living in mountain areas can expect more risk of floods by glacial lakes.
Already, Switzerland's Matterhorn had to be closed to some climbing at times because of recent summer rockfall attributed to global warming and its Great Aletsch Glacier ? Europe's largest ? has retreated a couple miles from its peak of 14 miles in length in 1860. The Swiss Alps' icy soil that glues its rock faces together is thawing, causing instability.
At Montana's Glacier National Park, glaciers are vanishing like the storied snows of Africa's Mount Kilimanjaro. In South America, the great ice fields of Patagonia in Argentina and Chile are shrinking; Bolivia hopes to keep its only ski area open by using artificial snow as the Chacaltaya Glacier fades.
The glacier from which Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay made their first ascent of 29,035-foot Mount Everest in 1953 has retreated so much that mountaineers now walk hours longer to reach it. A mile-long lake replaced the glacier at 20,305-foot Island Peak in Nepal's Everest region.
Japanese mountaineer and explorer Tomatsu Nakamura, editor of the Japanese Alpine News, said climbers are seeing more melting and less snow and ice in the mountains of the eastern Himalaya, Tibet and Bhutan, home to many of the highest unclimbed peaks in the world.
Since the 1940s, when geologist Maynard Miller began conducting research on Alaska's vast Juneau Icefield, he has seen how global warming has affected glaciers studied in the longest continuous research program of any icefield system.
"We're going to be in one heck of a mess, I can guarantee that. We have mucked up the world's climate," said Miller, who was part of the 1963 expedition that got the first Americans to the summit of Mount Everest.
"Everything is changing, minute after minute, nothing is the same," he said. "Glaciers are extraordinarily sensitive indicators of climate change."
Discussion is locked
1 - 30 of 58 Posts
- Collapse
- Collapse -
(last post got 'detoured')
.,
- Collapse -
It's been unseasonably cold for the last day or so (we had some flurries yesterday!); therefore global warming is a myth no matter what all those scientists say.
- Collapse -
... just like sooo many others do.
I just find it remarkable that the obvious evidence before our own eyes has been denied until it could no longer be ignored.
Those who have chosen to ignore and deny can't do it any longer so now they have all become instant naturalists and insist it is just part of the natural course of events. Well, going on canned bird hunts does not make one an outdoors expert. These folks, on the other hand, have made a career of traveling the world and they have seen things I could only aspire to. If they say nature is in trouble, I tend to believe them. Especially folks like Chouinard who is not only a mountain climber but a multi millionaire and successful business owner... supposedly all those qualifications that make you "qualified" to have an opinion about global warming.
- Collapse -
and in some cases they have been suppressed and even bullied. Okay to ignore THEM?
A lot of this is about funding for studies, perks and junkets.
If the obvious evidence before our own eyes really was obvious, there would be no disagreement, would there. But it is NOT obvious.
Especially folks like Chouinard who is not only a mountain climber but a multi millionaire and successful business owner... supposedly all those qualifications that make you "qualified" to have an opinion about global warming. How are those the qualifications to make you have an opinion on Global Warming any more than any other scientist? That makes no sense at all.
- Collapse -
- Collapse -
Are you just for an underdog in this case?
Your saying that because these folks have been bullied that we should pay more attention to them? When and where were they bullied? This guy is well qualified to express an opinion and he is doing just that while enjoying a prestigious academic position. I just don't see where he has been abused.
I find it odd that when it comes to national politics for the past 6 years you have made a case that we should go with the majority... but when it comes to the question of the causes for global warming... we should go with the minority.
- Collapse -
No, I did not say that they should be listened to because they have been bullied. But they should not be ignored. I believe the bullying has been documented here before.
Nor did I say this particular scientist has been bullied or abused.
You said: I ignore the scientists...just like sooo many others do.
I am just pointing out that that is a nonsense charge. Not everyone agrees with the Global Warming theory and they are not people who ignore science.
- Collapse -
... on economic and political considerations is suicidal. A politician who searches out scientists who only tells them what they want to hear is like going from doctor to doctor until you find one who tells you you don't have cancer.
Thank you though for clearing up my misconception of why you kept mentioning the issue of scientists being ignored.
- Collapse -
truth about climate. They've already formed their agenda, invested in their scenario, and are not interested in doubt or skepticism.
It's the skeptics that we need to pay attention to. They are not pushing some other agenda.
- Collapse -
of course they are.... it's called the "let's continue as we are, mother earth will take care of us" agenda
.,
- Collapse -
That is a complete mischaracterization of what the skeptics think and say. You really need to educate yourself and not just from one side.
- Collapse -
scepticism....
it's a fact of life that for every point of view there are sceptics, that no matter what, they'll say "gedouddahere!"....
and that being the case, my post stands as an irrefutable fact...
.,
- Collapse -
provide a link to a real scientist who is sceptical of the global warming theory, and who has said;
"let's continue as we are, mother earth will take care of us"
I am waiting with baited breath to see what this eminent scientist has to say.
- Collapse -
do you agree with this statement? -->it's a fact of life that for every point of view there are sceptics, that no matter what, they'll say "gedouddahere!"....
if you do, post stands as an irrefutable fact...
.,
- Collapse -
merely by pointing out the many people who do NOT have that agenda. I'm not sure you can show me any who do.
A fact is a truth that can be demonstrated to be true, not a semantic trick nor a personal prejudice. Sorry.
- Collapse -
And Al Gore is not doing just that? Haha. He's been caught in several exaggerations and just plain misstatements of fact.
- Collapse -
... I do not and never have... ever have... mentioned Al Gore as a reasonable benchmark against which to judge the seriousness or credibility of this issue. Al Gore is your pet peeve, not mine. The fact that you are always bringing him up (at least while answering my posts) brings a political angle to the issue that I try to avoid.
To my way of thinking... any politician's comments must be taken with a grain of salt... actually, sometimes a whole bag I'm talking about any party... not just dem, or rep, or green party for that matter.
You can shine a spot light on whom ever you please but quit assumming my concerns and interest in environmental issues are hitched to anyone's agenda.
- Collapse -
I didn't say you hitched your wagon to Al Gore. You mentioned a "politician..." I merely picked out the most prominent politician regarding the Global Warming issue. You DID make a post about that issue, did you not? You can't credibly discuss Global Warming and ignore its guru, Al Gore.
I didn't assume anything. I am merely presenting facts and opinions, as you are.
- Collapse -
Anyone see 60 Minutes last night? I usually don't bother with them, but they had a report on the use of nuclear power in France and other places. Very good.
Nuclear is clean, safe, cheap and emits no greenhouse gases. The drawback of waste storage is a technical problem that can and already is being solved.
More widespead use of nuclear power would go a long way towards solving the warming problem and freeing us from the Mideast oil barons. It is the rational way to go, BUT it is opposed and blocked by many of the same eco-activists who are pushing the global warming agenda.
I suggest if they are really serious about wanting clean and efficient energy and cutting back on carbon emissions, that they stop opposing nuclear plants.
- Collapse -
and i read a few days ago the the US already takes waste from dozens of countries...
.,
- Collapse -
Is there any point in pretending that CO2 increases will be catastrophic? Or could they be modest and on balance beneficial? India has warmed during the second half of the 20th century, and agricultural output has increased greatly. Infectious diseases like malaria are a matter not so much of temperature as poverty and public-health policies (like eliminating DDT). Exposure to cold is generally found to be both more dangerous and less comfortable.
Moreover, actions taken thus far to reduce emissions have already had negative consequences without improving our ability to adapt to climate change. An emphasis on ethanol, for instance, has led to angry protests against corn-price increases in Mexico, and forest clearing and habitat destruction in Southeast Asia. Carbon caps are likely to lead to increased prices, as well as corruption associated with permit trading. (Enron was a leading lobbyist for Kyoto because it had hoped to capitalize on emissions trading.) The alleged solutions have more potential for catastrophe than the putative problem. The conclusion of the late climate scientist Roger Revelle?Al Gore's supposed mentor?is worth pondering: the evidence for global warming thus far doesn't warrant any action unless it is justifiable on grounds that have nothing to do with climate.
Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies.
Consequences!
- Collapse -
From that radical right-wing rag, Newsweek.
LINK
Well worth reading and pondering.
- Collapse -
Well EDH, be honest now, are you an energy company spokesperson? You appear to be grossly misinformed and to either have been taken-in completely by the oil companies' propaganda & misinformation in its entirety, or you are being highly economical with the truth.
Would you please enlighten us mere mortals as to which of these is correct?
Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. - Believed True
His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies.
- Not True according to a number of sources
There appears to be more information than you offered:
The Union of Concerned Scientists offers the following information:
Reference http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf
Page 34 Appendix B Table 2
You also refer to climate scientist Roger Revelle because his views coincide with yours, but you rather conveniently choose to ignore the many thousands of highly qualified scientists, including:
The IPCC, who are supported and validated by: -
The American National Academy of Sciences [The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,000 members and 350 foreign associates, of whom more than 200 have won Nobel Prizes.]
The Royal Society of London [1400 Fellows and Foreign Members]
French National Academy of Sciences [membership not established]
Russian National Academy of Sciences [membership not established]
German National Academy of Sciences [membership not established]
Japanese National Academy of Sciences [membership not established]
Italian National Academy of Sciences [membership not established]
Canadian National Academy of Sciences [current membership of more than 1,700 Fellows who are recognized as the leaders in their fields.]
Brazilian National Academy of Sciences [membership not established]
Chinese National Academy of Sciences [membership not established]
Indian National Academy of Sciences [membership not established]
The Union of Concerned Scientists [more than 200,000 citizens and scientists ]
The American Geophysical Union [over 45,000 scientists from 140 countries]
The American Meteorological Society [membership >11,000]
The American Association for the Advancement of Science [The AAAS serves some 262 affiliated societies and academies of science, serving 10 million individuals. Membership not established]
The combined membership of these world recognised and highly esteemed organisations must number in the many tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of eminent scientists, [uncertainty declared over the breakdown of citizens versus scientists in respect of the Union of Concerned Scientists and the membership of the AAAS], and yet by implication you choose to blithely dismiss them and their views as expressed jointly through their organisations. Presumably, this is because the vast majority of their membership, disagrees with you!
There can be no doubt that the majority of independent scientifically based climatological opinion is agreed that climate change is real and that it is most likely caused by anthropogenic CO2 and that action to reduce emissions needs to start now.
However, there is also a growing body of evidence that the public perception of doubt and uncertainty over climate change and its causes is largely being manufactured through disinformation emanating from vested interests and the energy companies in particular. Exxon-Mobil has been identified as one of the main contributors of this disinformation by the union of Concerned Scientists, see http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf.
Your motto would seem to be: -
Don't Confuse me with facts! - My mind is already made-up!
- Collapse -
- Not True according to a number of sources
Why didn't you name any? Which oil companies have funded his research?
I notice that you list lots of people and make lots of accusations yet do not address any of the ideas in the article at all. Hmmm. Why is that?
- Collapse -
trusted. They've sold their souls to industry.
They also deny the faith of the true believers, so they MUST be nefarious. Does that about sum it up?
- Collapse -
he just questions the inflated claims of doom and addresses the unintended consequences of some of the "solutions". But it is my hunch that tx1138 either did not read the article or did not understand it.
- Collapse -
the Cato Institute, which get some funding from Exxon (shades of McCarthyism!) he must be a slave to the evil energy companies, just like I am!!!
Do you now or have you ever put gasoline in your car?
Tinfoil hats anyone?
- Collapse -
what difference does it make to us if the climate changes? We'll simply change to a different form of matter. No gain, and no loss.
- Collapse -
EDH,
Quote/
There appears to be more information than you offered:
The Union of Concerned Scientists offers the following information:
Reference http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf
Page 34 Appendix B Table 2
/Quote
Now if you download the above document and proceed to page 34 Appendix B Table 2, you will find one of the sources to which I referred.
Is that too difficult for you?
CNET Forums
Operating Systems
Software
Electronics & Gadgets
Hardware
Tablets & Mobile Devices
General Help
Roadshow Autos
Chowhound
Comic Vine
GameFAQs
GameSpot
Giant Bomb
TechRepublic