Nepal threatened by Global Warming

J

jmings

Joined
Aug 20, 2005
Messages
488
:(

Save Mount Everest, First Climber Pleads
Save Mount Everest, First Climber Pleads
By Alexandra Zavis
Associated Press
posted: 11 July, 2005
10:57am ET


JOHANNESBURG, South Africa (AP) _ Edmund Hillary, the first climber to conquer Mount Everest with his Sherpa guide, on Monday urged that the world's highest mountain be placed on the United Nations' list of endangered heritage sites because of the risks of climate change.



Himalayan lakes are swelling from the runoff of melting glaciers, environmental campaigners warned as the 29th session of the U.N.

Environmental, Scientific and Cultural Organization's World Heritage Committee got under way Sunday in Durban. Many could burst, threatening the lives of thousands of people and destroying Everest's unique environment, they said.



``The warming of the environment of the Himalayas has increased noticeably over the last 50 years. This has caused several and severe floods from glacial lakes and much disruption to the environment and local people,'' Hillary said in a statement released Monday.

``Draining the lakes before they get to a dangerous condition is the only way to stop disasters.''



The New Zealander, who with Sherpa Tenzing Norgay first scaled the world's highest peak on May 29, 1953, is one of a collection of climbers and others who have joined environmental groups in calling for the inclusion of Nepal's Everest National Park on UNESCO's World Heritage in Danger List.



Inclusion would commit UNESCO to assessing the risk to the park and developing corrective measures in conjunction with the government of Nepal.



Climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions from industrialized countries also threatens the coral reefs in Belize and glaciers in Peru, according to activists who have petitioned for their inclusion too on the endangered list.



UNESCO's World Heritage Committee is responsible for implementing the 1972 U.N. Convention on the protection of cultural and natural sites around the world. Forty-two new sites will be proposed for inclusion on the body's World Heritage List at the weeklong meeting in Durban.



The list already protects 788 sites, of which 35 are designated as endangered.
 
Agreeing upon climate change, and then doing something about it, assuming we even could, or would choose a correct path, are highly debatable.


munk
 
munk said:
Agreeing upon climate change, and then doing something about it, assuming we even could, or would choose a correct path, are highly debatable.


munk
Click to expand...

exactly right
 
I'm afraid our cure would kill us faster than the global warming.

That's the trouble with humans. We're not that smart and we make value judgements recklessly.



munk
 
True. But just looking at the amount of CO2 that we put into the air every year, and knowing its properties, it is highly unlikely that we have not adversely affected the climate. What to do? Well, I don't really see any theoretical problems with reducing emissions and trying to be cleaner in general. Why pollute needlessly?

Indeed, we have a history of screwing things up, and having the solution hurt us as bad. But in this case, a well-concieved response indeed seems necessary. I believe something should be done. I have been saddened, seeing senseless destruction of nature. There's no point to much of it. Just careless.

I am curious, Munk, what you mean when you fear that our "cure" would kill us quicker than global warming. I've not heard this side of it before. How could cleaner energy possibly hurt?

Chris
 
But the important thing is to get those lakes drained before they burst loose and kill a lot of Nepalese.
 
Just for the sake of discussion, I volunteer with a lady who works at some kind of a science lab that studies global warming. One day she was explaining her job, and what she said is that apparently the sun goes thru periods of greater and lesser heat output, shaped like a sine wave. Apparently, at the moment we are at the top of one of the waves of heat output, and at some point in the next hundred years or so we will reach the bottom of the wave. She also said that most of the places where global warming is measured is near large cities such as Atlanta, and once emissions leave the area, their effects are marginal. I dont know how much of this is true, but I figured I'd put it out there as more discussion fodder.
 
I think the important thing is getting the lakes drained.

The environment is simple and complicated at the same time. When you try a simple fix, like, 'don't cut trees down 'cause animals need them,' the entire forest burns down later because the growth was overthick. Now you've lost the trees, habitat, and animals.
We don't know what will happen if greenhouse gases continue at this rate. Volcanos release a lot of greenhouse gas too. It's all over my head. I think it's over most scientist's heads too. I think we need concensus and a sharing of data to arrive at the best conclusions, but people don't like to work together. A great deal of 'science' is predetermined. It's not supposed to be, but it is. People manufacture models that support their positions.

In this current situation, I'd be scared to death to do anything about Global warming, and scared to death not to do anything about it.


munk
 
I believe what Munk said. Do we have the power to control environmetal cycles. Should we do it?:eek: Why meddle with it? I think we could seriously hurt the entire planet by monkeying with a cyclical system that we've only just begun to chart anyway. :rolleyes:

I think cleaner energy is good, but I think we've got to be allowed to build refineries, and reactors, and drill for our resources. "Nobody wants this in his back yard" thinking has seriously endangered our nation.:grumpy: Katrina is a perfect example of this. If people in other parts of the nation had allowed some refineries, and stood up to PITA etc., we'd have been better off.

Its such a knee jerk reaction to try to SOLVE global warming.:yawn: What if the cavemen has solved GLOBAL COOLING during the ICE AGE?:eek: What then? The earth has been shown to take care of herself.:thumbup: :thumbup: We should live as cleanly as we can, but lets drop the God complex we have about controling her climate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Andy
 
One of our local "weather men," is a member of the AMS. He says that 75% of the increase in average temp since 1600 took place prior to 1800. Damn few SUV's back then.
 
This is a subject that has me completely at a loss to find any real information on.

I have been trying to find empirical data used in the studies of the earth's surface temperatures ranging for over 100 years, or at least a significant time span. I have found all kinds of charts showing increasing temperatures, and also some that show it remaining stable, and even a few others that show a small decrease in temperature. No study can ever be believed without the disclosure and outside evaluation of the empirical... which is all I am really asking here to come up with my own analysis on the actual effects of global warming.

So far, the only thing I have found useful to me was a temperature comparison between all the months in 1840 and compared them to 1998. The results showed 1998 2-5 degrees colder in most cases... but this data is not reliable at all due to the differences in quality of the measuring devices and the very limited amount of data used, it really doesn't mean much at all. Also, the need to take outside factors into account such as the "urban warming" concept which is basically takign readings inside or so close to a city where factors other than the actual weather are measured in the temperature... i.e. factory fumes, vehicles driving by, general movement in the area can all have a slight impact on the temperature reading.

The amount of industrialized area on this planet compared to the untouched portions is actually very small. The human race congregates in cities and outside of them. Just drive through the plane states or even South american countries, hell all over the world, and there are hundreds and hundreds of miles void of any type of human population.

The only type of pollution that has actually caused any problems thus far is particle pollution caused by industrial processing and vehicles, but you will only find this in cities. I think Mexico City, mexico isprobably the worst example of this as it is a densly populated city surrounded by mountains, the worst in theis country I believe is LA. Emmission controls of industry as well as a marginal effect on vehicles has cut down on this.

Also, the use of CFCs, which makes its way into the stratosphere before reacting with and destroying O3 (O-zone) is no longer being manufactured, and is very sparingly used in the United States. However, countries entering mass industrialization or those with few pollution controls (i.e) still use CFCs because they are cheaper to produce and are more effective than alternatives. The effects of this are an increase in UV rays, not the increase of Co2 which is what constitues the global warming principle.

The last thing I am wondering about is all the unknown factors involved with global temperature: The condition and patterns of the Sun, the effects of positional placement of the Earth on it's orbit around the sun (doesn't follow the same exact path each time), also the natural weather patterns over the past thousands of years.

To me, there just isn't enough evidence at all to make ANY conclusion as of yet. The only thing that really pissed me off about this subject is the crowds of people who bitch about global warming as if it was a proven fact that we are increasing the planet's temperature. There are just way too many factors not yet accounted for... and I can't even find any studies based on the simplest of information... the actual global temperature patterns over any tiume greater than a decade or so. Hell, even the last 50 years or so showing me the actual temperature of the Earth is increasing would at least give a HINT that there is any actual increase in temperature. Sadly, I can't find any of this.
 
Thomas Linton said:
One of our local "weather men," is a member of the AMS. He says that 75% of the increase in average temp since 1600 took place prior to 1800. Damn few SUV's back then.
Click to expand...

Blame it on the large horses... :)

I remember back a lot of years ago people were saying the same sorts of things about the next ice age.
:rolleyes:
 
There evidently is some evidence of the ice caps melting. I don't know how long this process takes, and if it actually started hundreds of years ago (possible).

I have heard it claimed that air quality is actually much better now than it was in the 1800s. When you think of everyone cooking/heating with wood and coal, that would make sense.
 
Right, I have heard of ice caps melting as well. But what we don't know is if this is a natural occurence or is it an effect of pollution? I mean, this is similar to beach erosion. Over thousands or even millions of years, beaches in different ares will grow larger and smaller. yet in some places (mostly for tourism reasons), this is being counteracted by transporting sand form one beach to another in vast quantities.

Some glaciers are melting, other glaciers elsewhere will be growing. It takes one hell of a long time for a glacier for melt. I have seen experiments where glaciers that were a danger to shipping were towed south to warmer waters and even napalmed and shot with aircraft machine guns to try to melt it and break them down. Even then, their results were unsuccessful, and although it would ultimately melt, it would take several years and the ordinance needed to melt it quickly would not be anywhere near cost effective... good training aid though. Also, water is one of the few substances that expands when it freezes, by approximately 9% I think. And with 90% of their surface under the surface, would the ice melting really cause the ocean levels to rise? Keep in mind that only approximately 92% of the volume of the glacier will be left as it is turned into liquid, and since 90% of the glacier was already displacing water, does that really increase the water level?

Once again, I am left with far too many questions and too few answers. I'm not saying there isn't going to be an answer on this question, its just that I haven't seen enough evidence to convince me either way. I do see signs, but I also see other possible causes. Until the other possible causes are examined and eliminated as the cause, I will continue to be cautiously skeptical. I need data, not whiney Sierra Club, the ELF, and other green organization members jumping to conclusions then shouting it at the top their lungs at me while I top off the gas tank in any of my vehicles... I'm paying for the gas, why the hell should they car how much I use?
 
Some interesting stuff this is from a site promoting nuclear energy:

"There is clear evidence of changes in the composition of the greenhouse gases in the lower atmosphere. Ice core samples show that both carbon dioxide and methane levels are higher than at any time in the past 160,000 years. "


"Electricity generation is one of the major sources of carbon dioxide emissions. Coal-fired generation* gives rise to twice as much carbon dioxide as natural gas per unit of power at the point of use, but hydro and nuclear power do not directly contribute any. If all the world's nuclear power were replaced by coal-fired power, electricity's carbon dioxide emissions would rise by a third. "

"Carbon dioxide has now increased 31% since 1750 to a higher level than any time in the last 420,000 years, and probably 20 million years. It contributes 60% of the warming effect. About three quarters of the human-induced carbon dioxide emission is due to fossil fuel combustion.

Methane concentration in the atmosphere has increased 150% since 1750 and contributes a fifth of the warming effect. The balance is from halocarbons (14%) and nitrous oxide (6%).

Ozone depletion from 1979 * 2000 is estimated to have cause a negative warming equivalent to the positive effect caused by nitrous oxide release. However, uses the ozone depleting compounds (for example refrigerants) will be reduced as countries comply with the Montreal Protocol * which serves to halt the use of such chemicals and allow recovery of the ozone layer.
Aerosols (eg sulphates) arising from human activity counter atmospheric warming to some degree but are short-lived.

Natural factors, notably solar intensity, increased warming in the first half of the 20th century"

http://www.uic.com.au/nip24.htm

Several periods of warmth (listed below) have been hypothesized to have occurred in the past. However, upon close examination of these warm periods, it becomes apparent that these periods of warmth are not similar to 20th century warming for two specific reasons:

The periods of hypothesized past warming do not appear to be global in extent, or

The periods of warmth can be explained by known natural climatic forcing conditions that are uniquely different than those of the last 100 years.
Several commonly cited periods of warmth are as follows:

The so-called "Medieval Warm Period" (ca., 9th to 14th centuries)

The so-called mid-Holocene "Warm Period" (ca. 6,000 years ago)

The penultimate interglacial period (ca. 125,000 years ago)

The mid-Cretaceous Period (era?) (ca. 120-90 million years ago)

The latest peer-reviewed paleoclimatic studies appear to confirm that the global warmth of the 20th century may not necessarily be the warmest time in Earth's history, what is unique is that the warmth is global and cannot be explained by natural forcing mechanisms.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleobefore.html
 
I believe that increased CO2 levels may have something todo with the removal of an enoumous portion of the Earth's trees. I would stand behind reforestation. We could start with say...France.:D

Andy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top