Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 Next
Comments 62451 to 62500:
-
Tom Curtis at 15:40 PM on 7 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
Fairoakien: 1) The graph shown by Albatross shows total heat gain by the Ocean, and by Land, atmosphere and ice. Because the Oceans occupy two thirds of the Earth's surface, and have an average depth of 3.75 km. Therefore they can absorb much more heat than the land surface and atmosphere, even though land surface and atmosphere increase in temperature at a faster rate. It is quite frankly unclear to me whether the land or ocean is heating (gaining energy) at a faster rate when compared on a m^2 basis, cubic meter basis of effected areas, or per tonne basis of effected volume. As others have indicated, a link to, or full citation of a paper which discusses any of these would be interesting. 2) You raise an interesting point about figure (4). Examining it, it appears to me as though Keith Pickering to the 1989 to 2011 linear trend and then drew in the FAR projection (Best estimate of climate sensitivity, best approximation of actual change in forcings) in with the same origin to enable easy direct comparison. That strikes me as an appropriate way of proceeding. The only more appropriate way is to normalize both projection and temperature record over the period 1969 - 2011 and adjust the means to match. It is important to note that, contrary to your description, the graph does not simply originate from 1989 as the trend lines do not pass through the 1989 temperature record. In other words, Pickering did not use the same absurd technique used be the WSJ 16 except in reverse. Given your condemnation of Pickering's method (as you mistakenly take it to be), I expect an equally strenuous condemnation of the WSG 16's actual technique. Finally, the IPCC FAR did not predict 1990 temperatures. The models were run from 1765 and result in inconsistent temperatures for 1990. The clear intention is to predict trends from 1990 rather than to predict absolute temperatures. Therefore Pickering's (or the alternative I described) are the only appropriate methods of comparison. -
dana1981 at 15:37 PM on 7 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
Utahn - thanks for the link. When I saw that particular slide I really had no idea what Lindzen was talking about. Looks like Gavin has caught him just plain flat out screwing up and wrongfully basically accusing NASA GISS of fraud in the process. I'm sure Lindzen will apologize to the scientists at NASA GISS and the audience that he misinformed any day now. -
actually thoughtful at 15:28 PM on 7 March 2012It's the sun
Cruzn246 - what is the basis for your statement (ie where is the peer reviewed published research) and how do you explain the cooling since 1918? Other theories match the known data better than the statement "1365.7 seems to be enough to warm". One in particular I would draw your attention to is AGW - it not only incorporate the sun (obviously the primary source of heat energy) but it also includes things like water vapor, CO2, soot pollution, ice cover, volcanoes, etc. Check it out -the good news is the heavy lifting has been done - you can read article on this site that address any question you have.Response:[DB] You can peruse Cruzn246's litany of comments here, as he has a long history of posting unsupported assertions at SkS going back about a year and a half. Note the moderator response to this comment over a year ago.
Nor is it the first time he has posted such comments on this very long thread.
-
Tom Curtis at 15:08 PM on 7 March 2012Mt. Kilimanjaro's ice loss is due to land use
Trent1492 @8, I have always been suspicious of fake skeptic claims that Kilimanjaro's snows did not melt as a consequence of global warming. As temperature increases, ice sublimates faster. The area around Mount Kilimanjaro shows a 0.5 to 1 degree anomaly relative to the 1951-80 mean for December through to February (GISTEMP), the hottest time of year for Mount Kilimanjaro. (It shows the same anomaly on annual data as well. Clearly, there has been an increase in sublimation due to temperature on Kilimanjaro. Consequently the common fake skeptic claim that the summit of Mount Kilimanjaro is still below freezing, and that therefore global warming is not responsible for the loss of ice is a non-sequitur. Against this, insolation rates and humidity also effect rates of sublimation. Aerosol Optical Depth has increased with time over the twentieth century, although at a much reduced rate between 1975 and 2000, which would tend to reduce sublimation rates. However, this 2004 study, by the same lead author as the paper to which you link, strongly suggests that change is cloud cover is the dominant factor, with reduced cloud cover resulting in greater insolation and hence greater sublimation. Until a study shows the regional change in cloud cover is a consequence of global warming, it is not possible to conclude categorically that global warming is the cause of the ice loss. The paper you linked @5 (actually, the news report for me, as the paper is behind a paywall) is very interesting. From the news report and abstract, it does not rule out Land Cover and Land Use Changes as a cause of the reduced as the cause of the ice melt. It does mean, however, that claims that global warming was not the cause of the ice loss on Kilimanjaro are unproved at best. It shows that LC?LUC are probably not the cause of changes in cloud cover at the peak of Kilimanjaro, but does not show that global warming is. Of course, given that the claim that Kilimanjaro did not lose its snow due to global warming is at best unproved, that certainly means Kilimanjaro is not the counter example to global glacial shrinkage due to global warming that fake skeptics pretend it is. -
Utahn at 14:38 PM on 7 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
Gavin has a post at RC as well on GISTEMP misrepresentations from Lindzen... -
KR at 13:02 PM on 7 March 2012Newcomers, Start Here
Composer99 - You need to take the current values, roughly 0.65-0.8 W/m^2, and a surface area of 5.1x10^14 m^2 (not km^2, which is 10^8). That means 313.5 to 408 TW (10^12 Watts), 3.134x10^14 to 4.08*10^14 joules per second - right now. -
DMarshall at 12:49 PM on 7 March 2012PMO Pest Control: Scientists
It's not just the Harper Conservatives; the provincial Gov't of Alberta (aka the Oil Patch of Canuckistan) has been right-wing for a long time and there's a rising force, with whom the radical Tea Partites would strongly identify, called the Wildrose Alliance. Needless to say, they ascribe to the same conspiracy theories about climate scientists as the Republicans -
Composer99 at 12:41 PM on 7 March 2012Newcomers, Start Here
Here's a newb question: Climate forcings are usually expressed in Watts per square metre (W m-2). So for example, James Hansen in his AGU 2011 Fall Meeting press conference explains that the anthropogenic greenhouse forcing from pre-industrial times to the present is 3 W m-2, where the forcing applies across the entire Earth surface area. Given an Earth surface area of approx. 5.1 x10e8 m2, we get a climate forcing of (3 W m-2)(5.1 x10e8 m2) or approx 1.5 x10e9 W. Given 1 Watt is 1 Joule per second, my question is: Does the climate forcing given mean that, on average 1.5 billion Joules is accumulating in the Earth climate system every second from pre-industrial times to the present (using Hansen's figure)? -
Composer99 at 11:44 AM on 7 March 2012PMO Pest Control: Scientists
Pay no attention to the systematic shutting down and defunding of good science in Canada... look, a panda! -
owl905 at 11:39 AM on 7 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
@dana22 - He is taken seriously by a wide audience of pro-pollutionists. And he needs to be taken seriously, and rebutted seriously, by the voices for science. -
KR at 11:31 AM on 7 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
Fairoakien - "...the ocean is heating at a slower rate than the land mass..." As expected - this was predicted by Svante Arrhenius from first principles in 1896 - land has less accessible thermal mass, and will react to changes faster than the oceans. -
KR at 11:28 AM on 7 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
Fairoakien - "The FAR projection was extended from the lowest temperature at the time, 1989..." The FAR projection (in Fig. 4, which in absence of other information from you I suspect you are speaking of) is presented as a trend comparison. In fact, the FAR projections shown (Fig. 1, Fig. 3 of this post) are the results of model runs showing anthropogenic temperature gains over a baseline state: "The contribution of the change in greenhouse gas concentrations to the change in global-mean surface air temperature (C) during 1875 to 1985 together with projections..." Fig. 6.11, page 190, emphasis added. ...and not scenario expectations for absolute temperature. This is because the FAR isn't assuming that CO2 is the only forcing. I suggest you do a bit more reading before you try accusing anyone else of "self-serving justification". -
cruzn246 at 11:27 AM on 7 March 2012It's the sun
Solar activity does not have to increase to cause warming. It has to be at or above a certain level. Approximately 1365.7 seems to be enough to warm. It pretty much held or exceeded that level from 1918 or so on. -
Composer99 at 11:03 AM on 7 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
Fairoakien: With regards to your statement on ocean heating: that oceans heat more slowly than the atmosphere and Earth surface will surprise no knowledgeable person, thanks to the high specific heat capacity of water. That is why the oceans are such a large heat sink, and hence as long as the oceans are still accumulating heat there is no sensible basis on which to claim that global warming has stopped. -
scaddenp at 10:59 AM on 7 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
"recent articles show that the ocean is heating at a slower rate than the land mass" What articles would these be please? -
Albatross at 10:52 AM on 7 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
@ 88, The heat content graphic @30 is based on Church et al. (2011); the data were kindly provided to SkS by Drs. Church and White. -
Fairoakien at 10:42 AM on 7 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
What a self serving justification! No wonder there are non be believers The FAR projection was extended from the lowest temperature at the time, 1989 If the average of the 3 years temperatures 1989-1991 Then the projected sloped line is at the top of the observed temperature range (-Snip-) Oh and Albatross : I don't know wher you got the heat sink graph from, but recent (-Snip-) articles show that the ocean is heating at a slower rate than the land mass which is why they explain the rise in temperatures over the Northern Asian land massResponse:[DB] "recent (-Snip-) articles show that the ocean is heating at a slower rate than the land mass"
Kindly provide a link to the peer-reviewed paper published in a reputable scientific journal for this unsupported assertion.
Inflammatory snipped.
-
scaddenp at 10:37 AM on 7 March 2012Oceans Acidifying Faster Today Than in Past 300 Million Years
Yes, but note a lot of research on its accuracy. The inferred changes in CCD is what I understand underpins the PETM event. -
Griffin at 10:20 AM on 7 March 2012PMO Pest Control: Scientists
Mark R@14, If indeed Canada does much better than the USA, there will be the same problem as in California during the depression, millions of Climate Refugees that, given the balance of power, Canada will have to accept. -
dana1981 at 10:17 AM on 7 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
Lindzen is undoubtedly very smart and very well-informed about climate science. Which is why it's all the more puzzling that he claims we've doubled CO2-equivalent, that we can just ignore aerosols' impacts on temperatures, that he fails to differentiate between transient and equilibrium warming, etc. If Lindzen doesn't understand these things, then he's not nearly as smart as I think. If he does, well, it's against SkS policy to comment on peoples' motives or suggest they're being dishonest, so there's not much more I can say about that scenario. Regardless, as long as Lindzen continues not only to make, but rely so heavily on this obviously wrong argument, he simply cannot be taken seriously. -
logicman at 10:16 AM on 7 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
les #14 Thanks, I already left some comments there. When I first signed up at the Guardian the name 'logicman' was already taken, so I has to use a variation. It's easy to spot. My comments are the ones about charity law. :-) Back to the topic: the committee room rented for Lindzen is quite small. Perhaps the organizers realized just how many empty seats there would be if they rented the Royal Albert Hall or Wembley Stadium. Of course, if they had made their "debate" open to the public then they may well have made a tidy sum from ticket sales: but they would have been outnumbered by those of us who are careful to examine all of the available scientific facts before reaching our conclusions. It is a sign of a very closed mind to start with a conclusion and seek evidence in support, as is done by the campaign against the climate act. They are offering prize money for essays: "We invite pieces from 1,000 to 2,000 words in length, to gore one of the sacred cows of the environmentalist movement." -
Stephen Baines at 10:03 AM on 7 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
Lindzen is undoubtedly accomplished, but how someone's ideas are considered by ones peers is a better measure of current reputation than a publication list. His ideas have been out there for long enough that people have been able to test them directly. Unlike the atmosphere, they just don't hold water. The only question is why he holds onto these ideas so stubbornly. Generally, that is not an admired trait. -
Stephen Baines at 09:49 AM on 7 March 2012Oceans Acidifying Faster Today Than in Past 300 Million Years
Scaddenp...Don't they use delB-11 in borate to estimate past variations in pH? That is a more direct measure supposedly. It doesn't vary much either I believe. -
owl905 at 09:37 AM on 7 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
@Rob 17 - if you want to dispute Lintzen's list in his "Publications" section, do it with him. There seems to be two references in the list to Jupiter, and the suggestion that papers aren't papers because they're not 'peer-reviewed' papers doesn't get much traction here. The non-paper you produced is a debate published in Nature magazine - Nature reviews and accepts/rejects those discussions. If he's done some padding with Business Today, it's minor compared to the compendium of work in atmospheric physics over three decades. It's his accomplishment and reputation that was behind the stunned reaction when he first forwarded the 'AGW has stopped' interview in 2004. He's one of the skeptics that has a lot of expertise traction. -
actually thoughtful at 07:39 AM on 7 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
GreenCooling - I am interested in the refrigerants you mention - one of the problems we have right now in renewable energy is that R-134/R410-A (the common ones after the Montreal Protocol took effect) is limited to a high temp of about 120F in a ground source heat pump. But to get to the high temp you need to really work the compressor, so we need a refrigerant that can easily handle higher temperatures (180F would be ideal...). Less compressor work = less electricity = smaller PV/wind array or (in the worst case) the less coal burned. This is for the concept of a ground source heat pump (GSHP) powered by PV as a way to handle both heating and cooling (heating alone is better handled by straight up solar thermal). Do you know, or can you point me towards, the temperature properties of the all natural refrigerants you mention above? Are you thinking of ammonia or CO2 as the refrigerant? I've read about ammonia powered chillers driven by evacuated tube solar thermal panels. Currently not small enough for residential, but intriguing. -
actually thoughtful at 07:30 AM on 7 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
Reading this post late, I am struck by how much Anteros is stuck on the same problem that Michaels had: treating BAU as a common term, rather than a scientifically defined term. If BAU means "business as usual" - and "business" hasn't notably changed - then they may have a point. But in both cases, Michaels, and now Anteros, have to ignore the fact that the term BAU is defined to be a particular forcing (different I think, one being Hansen's 1988 BAU and the other being the 1990 FAR BAU -but because the terms are defined, there really isn't an excuse for the confusion. Anteros, it can be hard to see the problem with something when you have espoused it so vehemently - take a look at Micheal's BAU problem - see if you can recognize where Michael's erred, and then see if you recognize it in your own position. At this point I think we have a new myth "BAU means whatever happened". -
scaddenp at 06:50 AM on 7 March 2012Oceans Acidifying Faster Today Than in Past 300 Million Years
Well paleoclimate cant actually measure pH directly. Instead the studies infer carbonate compensation depth which is a meaningful, ocean pH measure. Let's see the evidence that this fluctuates wildly. -
dana1981 at 06:47 AM on 7 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
Rob @17 - pretty much the same line since 1989, in fact. -
Trent1492 at 06:30 AM on 7 March 2012Oceans Acidifying Faster Today Than in Past 300 Million Years
I have heard the objection that since ph fluctuates widely on a daily basis that this measurement of a average ocean ph level is useless. I get the feeling that this argument is akin to the bit of sophistry that involves the same argument we hear in regards to measuring global temperature. -
scaddenp at 06:13 AM on 7 March 2012Oceans Acidifying Faster Today Than in Past 300 Million Years
There are many things that we can say with confidence about the PETM (likes the lower limit on the rates of acidification, timing constraints etc.) but I dont think cause is one of them. This is an active research area with many problems to solve - I'd keep away from definitive statements until some of the dust has settled. Oh, and watch the journals... -
Rob Honeycutt at 05:59 AM on 7 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
Interestingly, Lindzen has been plying pretty much exactly the same line since at least 1993. http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/165pal~1.pdf Owl905 @ 3... I got the above article from your link. There are a number papers on the list that are not actual papers. Some are just articles like this one. Others are papers on the climate of Jupiter. I think Lindzen's contribution to climate science is probably about half that number of papers. -
Paul D at 05:50 AM on 7 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
The definition of 'The House of Commons' is very specific. It is the room where the primary debates take place and voting on policy is conducted. Lindzen did not address anyone in there so basically Heartland Institute is ignorant of cultures and politics outside the US and has faked a meeting that never took place. The reality was... AFAIK a conference room was rented in the Palace of Westminster and invitations and people bought tickets for the event. On the other hand... Hansen did address one of the parliamentary select committees about 3 years ago, which was broadcasted on BBC Parliament and online. -
angliss at 05:37 AM on 7 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
Kevin C - yes it does. Thanks for the explanation. -
rustneversleeps at 05:22 AM on 7 March 2012PMO Pest Control: Scientists
@ Mark R, I certainly grok the logic of your speculation, but if there is one thing that the financial crisis of 2008-???? reinforced for me is that it not so easy to isolate "yourself" (be it an individual, corporation, nation) from global forces. Some dodgy mortgages go into default in Arkansas, and the next thing you know Google stock is down by 70% and Gordon Brown is suggesting that Britain take equity stakes in its banks. I am not so sure it plays out as neatly as our intuitions suggest. But if that were indeed the "planning" on The Harper Government(tm)'s part, it would be beyond cynical. The muzzling of our scientists is truly odious behaviour. This from a Harper who said while in opposition: "Information is the lifeblood of a democracy. Without adequate access to key information about Government policies and programs citizens and Parliamentarians cannot make informed decisions and an incompetent or corrupt Government can be hidden under a cloak of secrecy." Putz. -
Trent1492 at 05:09 AM on 7 March 2012Mt. Kilimanjaro's ice loss is due to land use
I am still at a loss on why the glaciers of Kilimanjaro are melting. I understand that temperatures at the summit have only risen a trivial amount. I know the loss has been blamed on increased sublimation but that leads to another question of why sublimation has increased in East Africa? I know that past researchers have minimized the role that AGW has played, yet I am still suspicious of why a glacier that has been around for at least 11,700 years would just start to melt at the same time as other mountain glaciers of the world. -
les at 05:01 AM on 7 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
5 - logicman I don't think so. Lord Lawson has a job to do. Lord Lawson's links to Europe's colossal coal polluter -
Dave123 at 04:58 AM on 7 March 2012Roy Spencer's Junk Science
Ron, A question of methodology here: Did you divide your work so that you have a training data set (say prior to 1985) and a prediction set? If not then your comparison with IPCC on anything is meaningless, yes, no? Dave -
Tom Curtis at 03:51 AM on 7 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
ribwoods @84, my apologies. It should be 60%. -
Albatross at 03:50 AM on 7 March 2012Mt. Kilimanjaro's ice loss is due to land use
Trent @5 good find. As someone who has undertaken some work in this field, I never found the argument/hypothesis land use change on the lower slopes argument affecting the precipitation on the summit (almost 6000m) very compelling. However, the fake skeptics (e.g., WUWT and Marc Morano ) have been happily perpetuating this idea for some time now. Contrary to the what the fake skeptics claim, Mölg et al. conlcude: "Thus, for the moment, the hypothesis that local LCC is another forcing of glacier loss on Kilimanjaro cannot be corroborated." And "We therefore argue that attribution of glacier change and variability to large-scale climate dynamics is unlikely to be distorted by local LCC." I'm not sure what Pielke Senior has to say about this particular issue. Oddly enough, despite his very vocal critique of models, he was happy to endorse a modelling study on his blog by Fairman et al. (2011) which suggested that vegetation was affecting the precipitation at medium and low levels (not the summit) of Kilimanjaro. Interestingly Mölg was a co-author on the Fairman et al. (2011) paper. I have not yet seen Mölg et al. (2012) featured on Pielke's blog.... -
ribwoods at 03:35 AM on 7 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
Tom Curtis @ 80 "CFC 11: 417 ppbv (246 ppbv) 40%" One of those figures (probably the "40%") is incorrect. -
Kevin C at 03:33 AM on 7 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
angliss: Estimating TCR doesn't require linearly increasing CO2, or more accurately linearly increasing forcing. You can (almost) always use a deconvolution to deduce the impulse response function from an arbitrary set of temperature and forcing data. From the impulse response function you can deduce TCR, EQS, or anything else. How much data you need depends on the noise level and the timescale of the response of course. However, doing it on the back of an envelope without doing a deconvolution does require a linearly increasing forcing which roughly mimics the definition of TCR in all but scale. Does that clarify the point? -
dana1981 at 03:28 AM on 7 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
Hyperactive @2 - Lindzen published Lindzen & Choi 2009, and a slight revision to that (very flawed) paper in Lindzen & Choi 2011. angliss @11 - TCR is defined as the response to a linear forcing (see the link to the Monckton post above). -
Steve O at 03:23 AM on 7 March 2012It's cooling
If you are interested in an interesting analogy I discovered that contrasts a medium-term decline against a long-term trend (using sports), check out this post: http://ow.ly/9u8GZ
If one were to believe the latest trend, it would imply that we believe athletes are getting fatter and slower.
Check it out and tell me what you think.
-
Daniel Bailey at 03:22 AM on 7 March 2012Mt. Kilimanjaro's ice loss is due to land use
Trent, based on the Mölg paper you reference, a more appropriate interpretation would be that modelling suggests that "the hypothesis that local LCC is another forcing of glacier loss on Kilimanjaro cannot be corroborated". And thus refuting two (here and here) of Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr's papers on LCC (land-cover-change), as they might apply to Mount Kilimanjaro. -
angliss at 03:11 AM on 7 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
Maybe a little off topic as it's a technical question (if there's a better place for this, please forward me there). You say that estimating TCR requires a linearly increasing CO2, but I don't understand why. The transient response of an electronic circuit can be measured by an impulse response, step response, linear response, or any other kind of response you want. In theory, there's no reason we couldn't derive a differential equation that represents the TCR as a result of an impulse response, which is much closer to what we see. For a given system, the equation you derive from the impulse response is identical for any other input (step, linear, exponential, et al), so once you've got the equation, you can get anything else you want too. As a matter of practicality, deriving such an equation is not viable given the number of terms and solving for it numerically in a GCM is the right way to do it, but even so, wouldn't the terms of the differential equation define the TCR, not the response to a particular input type (linear)? Is it because TCR is defined as the response to a linear increase, or something else? -
JMurphy at 02:15 AM on 7 March 2012It's not bad
myhyla103, could you provide the link to where you read the Singh, Bengtsson paper. -
mohyla103 at 01:55 AM on 7 March 2012It's not bad
KR: I see. Declining snow extent seems a natural result of a warming planet so I'm not surprised. My original post was not an argument that warming isn't happening, just that the figures presented there seemed exaggerated in reference to "melting glaciers". -
KR at 01:47 AM on 7 March 2012It's not bad
mohyla103 - Snowpack is right up there with the glaciers.
[Source]
Less snow, less summer storage, less runoff - hence impacts on drinking water and agriculture
-
mohyla103 at 01:42 AM on 7 March 2012It's not bad
Tom Curtis: I do like your phrase "partially dependent". This seems a much more reasonable way to describe the situation. Do you know if there have been any studies in at-risk areas to determine how much meltwater actually comes from glaciers in the summer vs. remaining snowpack from the previous winter? It seems this would be valuable information. "Glaciers act as natural dams..." which can burst causing massive flooding events downstream. A retreating glacier would eliminate this possible threat, so it's not all bad news. "...absorbing large precipitation events..." I don't understand what you're referring to here: rain or snow? Does a glacier have a way of absorbing rainwater besides damming it up? logicman just told me rain cannot add to the mass of a glacier, so I'm confused now. If it's snow, why would a glacier need to absorb this? Is snow just accumulating on the ground more of a danger? "...while maintaining a relatively steady flow of melt water." Melting snow would also provide this, but in areas where the snow melts away quickly, glaciers would definitely provide a more permanent source of water. I agree with you on this point. I just wonder how significant this percentage is compared to snowmelt in those at-risk areas. -
mohyla103 at 01:17 AM on 7 March 2012It's not bad
logicman: Good point. However, I'm not arguing that glaciers aren't shrinking or won't continue to shrink. I'm just curious where the evidence is that *so many* people are dependent on the actual water melting off glaciers in the first place instead of other sources like snowmelt or rain runoff.
Prev 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 Next
