Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Climate Change Forum Glacier was 49ft Thick, now 10ft Thick

The glacier on Bolivia's Chacaltaya mountain -- which means "cold road" in the local Aymara language -- used to be the world's highest ski resort at 18,000 feet (5,500 metres) above sea level.

But the glacier is now only 10 feet (3 metres) thick on average, down from 49 feet (15 metres) in 1998, and glaciologist Edson Ramirez says it will disappear this year or next.

"This is a process that unfortunately is now irreversible," he said, adding that industrialized nations are doing too little and too late to slash carbon dioxide emissions.

Over 2 million people in the La Paz region depend heavily on the thawing of Chacaltaya and neighbouring glaciers for tap water and, indirectly, for electricity supplies.


http://uk.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUKN0725512820070607
.

That's nuthin', Dude. Wait'll the Himalayan Glaciers start to disappear. Then you'll hear some REAL hollerin'. There, we're talikin' 100's of MILLIONS of people depending on that water.

That's the thing about Global Warming. Once it starts, you can't stop it.

That will be horrific, as well as inevitable, so many people depend on that water from the Himalayan snow melt each year.

When I was 18 (a long time ago I must admit!), as a tourist in Switzerland, I walked in a tunnel carved through a large glacier called the Rhone Glacier. It has since melted completely!!

...and too late to clean up the soot too.

Could one particular glacier be helped by shading it with a geostationary shield?

hmmmm. It'd only slow the melting (at best). No, guess you'd have to change the regional climate too (increase snow).

This link above is an excellent example of how the entire focus is on cutting emission (not even soot!); and, not a mention of sequestration (the much larger potential of sequestration).

~SA'd

I agree that sequestration has potential but I cannot see how putting the whole problem underground helps eventually. Surely in time it will leak, erode, ooze or something, won't it? And has geo-sequestration actually been successfully installed anywhere yet?

Here in Oz we hear a lot about the other great hope, Clean Coal. Seems far off at the moment!

Post deleted by Amaranth Rose II

Hiya Ellis,

First let me say that I may have used the term geo-sequestration too loosely. I was referring to this type of biogeo-sequestration; enhancing the planet's natural systems to utilize more CO2. Keeping it stored is trickier, but possible.

The point is that if we can sequester as much as possible now, later when emissions have finally been lowered, it would be tolerable to have those carbon stores cycle back into the atmosphere. I'm also certain that at least some of the planet's natural systems have been degraded so as to no longer have net carbon storage. Restoring these systems would help now, and also allow us to offset emissions in the future.

Currently, with diminished global net carbon storage (if not a net release), and with emissions only increasing (however slowly), only global-scale sequestration will make any appreciable change in CO2 levels.

I didn't realize Nature has an article on this subject:
Lehmann, J., A Handful of Carbon, Nature 447:143 (May 10, 2007).
I need to read yet, but here's a quote:
"Biochar has been shown to improve the structure and fertility of soils, thereby improving biomass production[3]. Biochar not only enhances the retention[6] and therefore efficiency of fertilizers but may, by the same mechanism, also decrease fertilizer run-off."

Same is true for water/soil moisture & it increases microbial diversity.

...an interesting sounding article in the April 30, 2007 issue of Discover by Micheal Tenneson titled "Black Gold of the Amazon", which highlighted the importance of biochar to the ecosystem. "Some crops have been cultivated on the same plots for 40 years without ever needing fertilizer."

also sounding good, but I haven't checked yet:

Lehman, J., 2007 Bio-energy in the black. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment

Lehman, J., Gaunt, J., and Rondon, M.: 2006, "Biochar sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems - a - review", Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 11, 403-427

btw, there is a some actual geo-sequestering (i.e. pumping CO2 underground to enhance oil recovery; some mining/land use).

~SA

Thank you sam! I learned more from that explanation that made sense than all the current hyperbole that is spouted by our mostly self-interested politicians and, it must be said, scientists here in Oz.

For instance I had never realisd that the hope was to release the stuff eventually. So there is some small hope.

Thanks! That's too high praise really; I should have had an "IMHO" in there somewhere.

"The point is that if we can sequester as much as possible now, later when emissions have finally been lowered, it would be tolerable to have those carbon stores cycle back into the atmosphere." -S.

I don't think there is any mainstream concensus on this yet. I've been browsing the literature on some of the many complex aspects of climate change for months now; and it just seems like the only logical course (in terms of greenhouse effect).

...and it's based on the premise that "natural" sequestration potential does far outweigh fossil fuel emissions.

I'm also not sure we haven't (i'm pretty sure we have) already "tipped" into an accelerating CO2 release mode for tundra/polar soils, as well as an accelerating melting mode for glacial and polar ices.

...and there's the soot problem which isn't addressed by sequestration at all, and for which there is no reversing.

...and I haven't even looked into the sun yet! [NOW THERE is a quotable line!]
--You might be a pseudoscientist if....
...if you write "you might want to use a remote control to ignite the fuel mixture in the boiler." -paul
...or "...and I haven't even looked into the sun yet!" -samwik

sorry, tangentially...

As for the sun...
Though from the few tidbits I've run across, I think solar effects are as significant as greenhouse effects. But the sun may change too. Maybe we'll be lucky in ten years, to have all these GHG's around.

I could write more, but it gets less optimistic (something about social/polity considerations [re: "...self-interested politicians and, it must be said, scientists" ...as well as corporate/military "hyperbole"]).

Thanks again....
~SA

About politicians and their self-interest: Didn't the novelist, Gore Vidal--I heard him say he is a distant relative of Al Gore--write that there is only one party in the USA, the "Property Party"? It is made up of two wings. One is called the republican wing; the other is the democrat wing. Both wings are owned and operated by the big corporations.

BTW, IMHO, this is probably true for most so-called democracies.

Yes, politics has taken on way too much of a life of it's own.
Politics only seems to be covered by mainstream media at the level of celebrety infotainment.

*_*

Synergistic Sustainability and Sequestration:

As an economic philosophy, I think it could work wonders to eliminate poverty. Basically it'd mean paying people for good planetary stewardship. It'd mean basic education along with population guidance and management. It'd mean doing things on a culturally sensitive, regional basis.

But it's hard to be optimistic.
That philosophy is beyond even the realm of "pie in the sky."
Got any suggestions?

Sincerely,
~SA

The problem is, people just don't realize how DIVERSE Humanity is.
Samwik, nice post, for those with high brows. But there are a lot of Humans who live in complete oblivion to what is going on.

Years ago I travelled, Island-Hopping, from Bali to Singapore. Now, you might think that the people of Indonesia, with such a huge population, are fairly well in tune with what's going on in the World. You'd be mistaken.
Travelling along the north slopes of Java and Sumatra I came across some really primitive villages. There was no Highway, back then, you had to move from one isolated hamlet to another, crossing the rivers by small canoes. No power. Houses up on stilts. Pigs and dogs and chickens running free everywhere. In the more remote areas the villagers were of the custom of treating one daughter from each homestead (at adolescence, usually the second-born girl)to a series of herbal balm treatments that caused their mammary glands to "go into overdrive". The result was huge breasts, massive overdeveloped breasts that they would use to harvest Mother's Milk for sale and as remedies to various ailments. The girls would also suckle young piglets. It was one of the most bizzare things I've ever seen. These baby pigs were very highly valued, from what I could understand, and were sold at high prices for special occasions.

That's just a small hint at the kind of diversity among Human Beings.

When one speaks of "enlightening the World" one must consider the Lowest Common Denominator.

IT's a personal opinion, but suckling pigs rates pretty high on the yuck factor for me.

This practice is also found in Papua/ New Guinea where puppies are also suckled this way, but I had not heard of the special herbs as well. The life of these villagers is very basic and all the precious resources have to be used. We sometimes have a nostalgic view of life before modern urbanisation, but I would much prefer living in the 21st C as I am of Rose's opinion re pig suckling (and any etcs).

Here's an interesting thought- a real reality programme for TV like in "Brave New World" with the Savage - and about as successful. I don't think we are ready for that much reality and unique diversity!!!

can you please help me

the gobal climate change is done by time not carbone dy oxide or anything else
it is time thickness that changes everything

Post deleted by Amaranth Rose II

Back to suckling pigs. I think if you grew up in a culture where it was normal you might not be so repelled. I'm sure I've mentioned to Wolfman my father said they used to do it through the Solomon Islands when he had his big OE there during the minor disturbance in the middle of last century.

The idea of using it as part of a reality program, sort of "Survivor - Yet another Tropical Island", would be fascinating.

Oops. I see we're supposed to be talking about shrinking glaciers. I can see a sort of very remote connection.

It's not just "Backwoods" Humanity who are out of touch.

On the weekend I decided to "veg out" for awhile in front of the TV. I really don't watch as much TV as I should. I came across a "Star Trek" Auction. Props, wardrobe and accessories from the various Star Trek spin-offs were being auctioned off both live and On-Line. The auction had occured some time ago; the program I was watching was a documentary.
For 45 minutes you're watching all these people spout off about "Gene Roddenbury's Vision of the Future", the betterment of Mankind, yaddah, yaddah, yaddah...And then, when the bidding actually started, they were spending OBSCENE amounts on things like "tricorders", a Ferengi Dictionary, Mr. Spock's Ears. "Ordinary" people, from all over the World, paying as much as $250,000.oo for a model of "The Defiant". There were a pair of girls, from the UK, who had translated all of the songs ever recorded by The Beatles into Klingon.

Somehow it made thoese "Suckling Pig Girls" seem less disconnected.

Wolfman wrote:

"I really don't watch as much TV as I should".

Wolfman, it's far too easy to watch far too much TV. Don't waste your time. You only live a short while.