|
|
|
|
climbxclimb
Jul 6, 2006, 3:37 PM
Post #1 of 51
(32023 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2005
Posts: 80
|
Melting Mountains How Climate Change is Destroying the World's Most Spectacular Landscapes........ A huge mass of rock(2 millions Cubic Meters) on the East face of Eiger is about to collapse. In the last days geologists and Swiss geophysicists they have positioned a great number of instruments in order to follow closely the evolution of the situation. And from the data of the monitoring it turns out that the unstable wall has lowered of 2,5 meters and the crack that is detaching a gigantic sheet from the continuous wall to grow. Hansrudolf Keusen explains, one of the geologists following the situation: “The leak is being increased of 5 centimeters per day day. It is impossible to say when the cliff will fall ". According to Keusen he is probable much that the landslide will be taking place within the year. The geologist say that although this is a natural process for the Alps, it seams that these phenomenons had accelerated in the last years probably because of the over heating of the air on the planet. Sad....very Sad... :cry:
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jul 6, 2006, 3:50 PM
Post #2 of 51
(32023 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: Melting Mountains How Climate Change is Destroying the World's Most Spectacular Landscapes........ A huge mass of rock(2 millions Cubic Meters) on the East face of Eiger is about to collapse. (snip) The geologist say that although this is a natural process for the Alps, it seams that these phenomenons had accelerated in the last years probably because of the over heating of the air on the planet. Thanks for posting this. I wish I could go observe! All mountains are born to die by being worn and torn down, every single one of them. Lowlanders may come to think of mountains as eternal. But any of us who have climbed them knows the bitter truth... they are ALL falling down. The sensationalist use of 'destroying" annoys me, just as reporters who declare a wild fire as 'destroyed" thousands of acres. The article went on to state that mountains falling down are perfectly normal, then glossed over it with 'but its speeding up!' too bad they couldn't threaten 'millions of lives are at stake!" too. DMT
|
|
|
|
|
jumpingrock
Jul 6, 2006, 3:52 PM
Post #3 of 51
(32023 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 5692
|
As sad as it is, Mountains do Erode. Fortunatly for us climbers, it takes 100 million years for a mountain range to Erode and only 15 million for one to be created. Seems like there should always be a surplus.
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Jul 6, 2006, 6:27 PM
Post #5 of 51
(32023 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
yes, keep turning away, so when $hit really hits the fan it will hit you in the back.
|
|
|
|
|
pebbleman
Jul 12, 2006, 2:28 PM
Post #6 of 51
(32023 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2004
Posts: 80
|
Anyone familiar with the Alps, the history of the climbing there would recognize major changes in the patterns of glaciation, snow and ice conditions. When I first went to the Mont Blanc Massif in 1988 I was stunned to find the great ice routes in the Argentiere basin melting out, not until late August was it cold enough with barely enough ice buildup to do Les Droites North Face, and even then the climb was "mixed" rather than the massive ice face of decades earlier. Now my Italian friends tell me such an enterprise unthinkable, only in late Autumn or winter or early spring would such a venture be feasible, the major icefield in the face shrinks every year d/t reduced snowfall and warmer temperatures. Anyone who persists in believing global warming is not a reality and a grim one is either a fool, an imbecile or a Republican.
|
|
|
|
|
elvislegs
Jul 12, 2006, 3:17 PM
Post #7 of 51
(32023 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2002
Posts: 3148
|
In reply to: Anyone who persists in believing global warming is not a reality and a grim one is either a fool, an imbecile or a Republican. smart money is on all three, however, i think rockfall on that tottering choss heap might be considered the least of our worries.
|
|
|
|
|
flipnfall
Jul 12, 2006, 3:27 PM
Post #8 of 51
(32023 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 18, 2004
Posts: 717
|
In reply to: Anyone who persists in believing global warming is not a reality and a grim one is either a fool, an imbecile or a Republican. I'm Republican and I totally believe in global warming. All my friends do as well and we all agree that it's man-made warming, not just a natural fluctuation. I think yours is an unfair statement. Perhaps a rich, business-owning Repulicans will deny it, but some of us Republican grunts do believe it. I voted for Bush, but I agree that he hasn't done enough (or anything) on this matter. I voted for him because I knew he wouldn't forget 9/11 and I see terrorism to be a greater immediate threat (we can agree to disagree on that one), but I also agree global warming is a tremendous threat as well. Done with my soapbox time. GT
|
|
|
|
|
the_climber
Jul 12, 2006, 3:49 PM
Post #9 of 51
(32023 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 9, 2003
Posts: 6142
|
Hey, it's the nature of the beast :wink: A couple of notes on climate change.... (Just something to keep in mind) Yes, (though I hate to use the catch phrase :? ) 'Global Warming' is happening, and things are changing. Classic Ice lines are fading into climbing history, others are being discovered. Permafrost depths are adjusting, creating increases in rockfall hazard in some areas and in some cases large scale mass wasting. One thing to remember is that IT HAS BEEN HAPPENING FOR MORE THAN 10'S OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS (in this last cycle). 20000 to 15000years ago there was a km of ice (or more) over much of central Canada extending to the U.S. boarder. And Glaciers in Europe would dwarf current Alaskan glaciers. By 11000 years ago at least half to 2 thirds of that Ice volume was gone, and that's a heluvalot of ice to melt; I don't think Cro Magnon were burning that many fossil fuels then :lol: Just food for thought, Not saying burning fossil fuels and such is good for anything, just that in some ways warming was slowed for a while and maybe isn't so much anymore. It is an inevitable shame that it is happening on such a historic mountain. But, it's happening... Hey maybe we can get some green peace freaks to "try" and hold up the slide.... Ooooh, that was supposed to be internal monologue :twisted:
|
|
|
|
|
gunkiemike
Jul 12, 2006, 4:19 PM
Post #10 of 51
(32023 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 1, 2002
Posts: 2266
|
In reply to: One thing to remember is that IT HAS BEEN HAPPENING FOR MORE THAN 10'S OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS (in this last cycle). Correct/forgive me if I'm putting words into your mouth...but your comment sounds to me like typical denial behavior: "this is just part of the climatic cycling that's been going on for eons". Anyone who believes this is an accurate characterization owes it to themselves to read (or see) Inconvenient Truth. The current global heating is far, far beyond historical patterns.
|
|
|
|
|
ambler
Jul 12, 2006, 4:23 PM
Post #11 of 51
(32023 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2002
Posts: 1690
|
It's true that climate has varied a great deal through earth history, long before there were humans around. But that does not in any way argue against the scientific evidence that human activities such as greenhouse gas emissions are changing the climate right now, with potential to do so more drastically in the near future. Much state-of-the-art research today is focusing on distinguishing the natural and human forces behind climate change. If you don't read the journals, and get your opinions about science from Fox News, science-fiction authors or just prejudice, you might not know how thought-out and multi-faceted modern climate research is. Water flow in the Colorado River has always been variable. Would anyone use this true, simple fact to pooh-pooh the equally true, simple fact that human dams now affect the flow? Why does a parallel argument about climate keep getting played as if it made sense?
|
|
|
|
|
double
Jul 12, 2006, 5:02 PM
Post #12 of 51
(32023 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 29, 2003
Posts: 136
|
Some good points raised here. Remember that around 1550-1850 there was a little ice age, and we are now warming up from that. Photographs of glaciers from early in the century are bad for illustrating global warming because they were taken at a time when the glacier was larger than usual. Most scientists agree that humans are affecting the rate of warming now, but historically, these warming and cooling periods were natural. It's hard to say how much of the damage we are causing, and how much is natural. I don't think scientists can even be sure because the time period we've had for study is tiny in comparison to the time required for the earth's cycles. I do believe that global warming is occurring. However, there's no need to jump on someone for raising the point that some warming or cooling of the earth is natural, without calling them a Republican. As for the Eiger, it would likely fall apart regardless of global warming. Maybe a little further down the line, but that is what mountains do. Canadian Rockies will be gone in 65 million years, so hurry up and get a climb in.
|
|
|
|
|
ambler
Jul 12, 2006, 6:05 PM
Post #13 of 51
(32023 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2002
Posts: 1690
|
In reply to: Most scientists agree that humans are affecting the rate of warming now, but historically, these warming and cooling periods were natural. It's hard to say how much of the damage we are causing, and how much is natural. I don't think scientists can even be sure because the time period we've had for study is tiny in comparison to the time required for the earth's cycles. This is, exactly, one of the big issues in current research. As for the time periods involved, that's where paleoclimatology and climate proxies such as ice cores and seafloor sediments come in -- such data are yielding increasingly detailed pictures, looking deeper back into time. The Greenland ice core projects GISP II and GRIP, for example, were able to "see" back a bit over 100,000 years. Their findings have been quite influential, particularly with regard to the whole topic of "abrupt climate change," or as Richard Alley has put it, "inevitable surprises." Antarctic ice cores go back farther still. For example: Drawing on both paleoclimate and modern observational data, about 20 scientists authored an article last summer for EOS (a publication of the American Geophysical Union) which began by stating: "The Arctic system is moving towards a new state that falls outside the envelope of glacial-interglacial fluctuations that prevailed during recent Earth history" [i.e., the past 800 thousand years]. These are the folks who study the earth's cycles.
In reply to: However, there's no need to jump on someone for raising the point that some warming or cooling of the earth is natural, without calling them a Republican. I agree that the earth has naturally warmed and cooled in the past, and said so in the first line of my earlier post. But no one should mistake this fact for an argument that people aren't now affecting the climate.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jul 12, 2006, 6:58 PM
Post #14 of 51
(32023 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
interesting fact: The North Pole is liquid ocean right now. Yup, amazing but true - time to change those globes in the schoolrooms to get rid of the big white part on top! Do you happen to know if there's been any work done on Arctic ice core samples that would show whether there's ever been this level of melting in the Arctic? How old is the current ice cap over the North Pole (what's left of it)? 10k years? 50k? 100k? GO
|
|
|
|
|
ambler
Jul 12, 2006, 7:45 PM
Post #15 of 51
(32023 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2002
Posts: 1690
|
Heh, I've gotten too preachy here, more than needed for this forum. Going briefly back on topic, and away from global doom ... as somebody who used to dream about the great ice faces in Rebuffat's 100 Finest Routes, I'm sorry these are fading away.
In reply to: interesting fact: The North Pole is liquid ocean right now. Yup, amazing but true - time to change those globes in the schoolrooms to get rid of the big white part on top! Do you happen to know if there's been any work done on Arctic ice core samples that would show whether there's ever been this level of melting in the Arctic? How old is the current ice cap over the North Pole (what's left of it)? 10k years? 50k? 100k? Quoting again from that EOS article, which I happen to have handy: "There is no paleoclimatic evidence for a seasonally ice free Arctic during the past 800 millennia." With regards to Arctic ice caps, it's worth mentioning that there are two. The Greenland Ice Sheet, mostly on land and up to 3,000 meters thick, includes ice older than 100,000 years. It appears to be losing mass, which could have dramatic implications for climate (stopping the Gulf Stream?) and eventually, for sea level. The other big Arctic ice sheet is sea ice floating on the Arctic Ocean, which is no more than a few meters thick. Some of this ice (a shrinking amount) is multi-year, i.e. left over from previous winters, but it is nowhere near as old as the Greenland Ice Sheet. If the Arctic Ocean becomes ice-free in summer (the meaning of "seasonally ice free Arctic" in the quotation above), then that will not much effect sea level, but could sharply change the thermal properties of the planet. The possibility that Greenland ice melting could weaken or stop the Gulf Stream, and/or that Arctic Ocean melting could change the planet's heat balance, are two examples of what Al Gore refers to as "tipping points," where gradual changes could suddenly produce irreversible, nongradual results. Climate scientists sometimes use that term, but also "nonlinearities," "threshold effects," or as I noted before, "surprises."
|
|
|
|
|
the_climber
Jul 12, 2006, 8:29 PM
Post #16 of 51
(32023 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 9, 2003
Posts: 6142
|
In reply to: gunkiemike Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 9:19 am Post subject: Re: East face of Eiger collapsing! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- the_climber wrote: One thing to remember is that IT HAS BEEN HAPPENING FOR MORE THAN 10'S OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS (in this last cycle). Correct/forgive me if I'm putting words into your mouth...but your comment sounds to me like typical denial behavior: "this is just part of the climatic cycling that's been going on for eons". Anyone who believes this is an accurate characterization owes it to themselves to read (or see) Inconvenient Truth. The current global heating is far, far beyond historical patterns. Hey, Nowhere did I deny humans have no effect on 'greenhouse gasses' in my post. I even said "Not saying burning fossil fuels and such is good for anything". I was suggesting we should look at other reasons as well. Ans as for seeing "Inconvenient Truths"... I have a strong academic backround and have reviewed 1000's of accademic journals on climate chenge with a specific focus on various glacial and inter glacial periods throughout Earth history. As well as attending many symposiums on the subject, I have had many enlightening discussion with many Professors at various Universities across North America. There are many interesting facts that can be learned with a little research. Such as the average climate in the Canadian Tundra be up to 10degrees C hight prior to the last major Pliestocene glacial advance, and the regional temerature in the great lake region being at least 4 to 6 degrees C higher 14 to 16 years ago. Other tidbits, far more greenhouse gasses are emitted by volcanic erruptions than are produced by humans. Ocean currents and their effect on climate is a poorly understood science and many experts in that field believe we are as likely if not more likely to enter into another period of glacial advance as we are the have even wider spread deglaciation (For example, the gulf stream moderates much of eastern Europes climate, however, it is uncertain how much cold melt water is needed to disrupt it and what hte effect of that are.) I consider myself well read on the subject and am simple stating that both sides need keep an open mind on the subject. The medea is the poorest source for information on the subject. I prefer to get my information from academic sources, 'typically' less bull shite there. Hey, it's just some ideas. Take it for what you take it for. It's a debate best done at the local pub with a fine single malt scotch after a getting back from a great day of climbing. 8^)
|
|
|
|
|
scrapedape
Jul 12, 2006, 9:55 PM
Post #17 of 51
(32023 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 2392
|
In reply to: In reply to: gunkiemike Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 9:19 am Post subject: Re: East face of Eiger collapsing! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- the_climber wrote: One thing to remember is that IT HAS BEEN HAPPENING FOR MORE THAN 10'S OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS (in this last cycle). Correct/forgive me if I'm putting words into your mouth...but your comment sounds to me like typical denial behavior: "this is just part of the climatic cycling that's been going on for eons". Anyone who believes this is an accurate characterization owes it to themselves to read (or see) Inconvenient Truth. The current global heating is far, far beyond historical patterns. Hey, Nowhere did I deny humans have no effect on 'greenhouse gasses' in my post. I even said "Not saying burning fossil fuels and such is good for anything". I was suggesting we should look at other reasons as well. Ans as for seeing "Inconvenient Truths"... I have a strong academic backround and have reviewed 1000's of accademic journals on climate chenge with a specific focus on various glacial and inter glacial periods throughout Earth history. As well as attending many symposiums on the subject, I have had many enlightening discussion with many Professors at various Universities across North America. There are many interesting facts that can be learned with a little research. Such as the average climate in the Canadian Tundra be up to 10degrees C hight prior to the last major Pliestocene glacial advance, and the regional temerature in the great lake region being at least 4 to 6 degrees C higher 14 to 16 years ago. Other tidbits, far more greenhouse gasses are emitted by volcanic erruptions than are produced by humans. Ocean currents and their effect on climate is a poorly understood science and many experts in that field believe we are as likely if not more likely to enter into another period of glacial advance as we are the have even wider spread deglaciation (For example, the gulf stream moderates much of eastern Europes climate, however, it is uncertain how much cold melt water is needed to disrupt it and what hte effect of that are.) I consider myself well read on the subject and am simple stating that both sides need keep an open mind on the subject. The medea is the poorest source for information on the subject. I prefer to get my information from academic sources, 'typically' less bull s--- there. Hey, it's just some ideas. Take it for what you take it for. It's a debate best done at the local pub with a fine single malt scotch after a getting back from a great day of climbing. 8^) No offense, dude, but I have to say that I am dubious of the academic qualifications of anyone who misspells the words academic, Pleistocene, eruptions, and media, to name just a few, in the space of half a page. I also doubt the truthfulness of anyone who claims to have, by the age of 25, "reviewed 1000's of accademic journals" [sic]. Me, I'll take it from the national science academies of the world's leading countries (the G8, China, India, and Brazil):
In reply to: There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring1. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)2. This warming has already led to changes in the Earth's climate. The existence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is vital to life on Earth – in their absence average temperatures would be about 30 centigrade degrees lower than they are today. But human activities are now causing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases – including carbon dioxide, methane, tropospheric ozone, and nitrous oxide – to rise well above pre-industrial levels. Carbon dioxide levels have increased from 280 ppm in 1750 to over 375 ppm today – higher than any previous levels that can be reliably measured (i.e. in the last 420,000 years). Increasing greenhouse gases are causing temperatures to rise; the Earth’s surface warmed by approximately 0.6 centigrade degrees over the twentieth century. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projected that the average global surface temperatures will continue to increase to between 1.4 centigrade degrees and 5.8 centigrade degrees above 1990 levels, by 2100. The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions. Action taken now to reduce significantly the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will lessen the magnitude and rate of climate change. As the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) recognises, a lack of full scientific certainty about some aspects of climate change is not a reason for delaying an immediate response that will, at a reasonable cost, prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. http://www.nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
pebbleman
Jul 13, 2006, 2:08 PM
Post #18 of 51
(32023 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2004
Posts: 80
|
"I voted for Bush, but I agree that he hasn't done enough (or anything) on this matter. I voted for him because I knew he wouldn't forget 9/11 and I see terrorism to be a greater immediate threat (we can agree to disagree on that one), but I also agree global warming is a tremendous threat as well. " Bloody Hell mate, Bush and his Cabal of oil-industry rejects were utterly and completely asleep at the wheel when the planes hit, the most glaring instance of national security incompetence in this nation’s history, that moron should have been impeached. Then we corner Osama Bin Laden at Tora Bora, probably wound him in the bombing but when the special forces request army rangers to seal the border they are denied as Iraq and its oil fields have become the focus. Our enemy who should be dead or in Guantanamo gets away and the Islamic world is electrified at his escape, emboldened to confront us figuring we are weak or incompetent. Now are asses are stuck in Iraq chasing falafel salesmen around while North Korea has a nukular (sic) bomb and is building a missile that can reach Hawaii and certainly Japan. The ocean heats up, a hurricane wipes out New Orleans and your boy says, “Shucks, here oil companies have a tax cut!” WAKE UP! George Bush never gave a shit about 9/11 other than it got him re-elected, that’s why OBL is still eating lentils and wiping his ass with his hand in the Intertribal region of Afghanistan/Pakistan giving us the finger.
|
|
|
|
|
cintune
Jul 13, 2006, 2:30 PM
Post #19 of 51
(32023 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1293
|
Any action taken now will likely be too little, too late, and possibly irrelevant. Which is not to say we shouldn't try.
|
|
|
|
|
ambler
Jul 13, 2006, 2:37 PM
Post #20 of 51
(32023 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2002
Posts: 1690
|
In reply to: Any action taken now will likely be too little, too late, and possibly irrelevant. Which is not to say we shouldn't try. No, I suspect there are many actions we could take now that could matter -- not to prevent all change (it's already in motion), but to make the worst outcomes less likely, and pre-adapt to the things we can't change. But will we take any strong actions? That would hurt! So maybe not; we've spent the last 6 years going backwards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timstich
Jul 14, 2006, 1:51 PM
Post #22 of 51
(32023 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 3, 2003
Posts: 6267
|
If any of you have been to the Eiger, then you know just how chossy that limestone is. VERY spooky stuff. It's amazing that it's standing at all. I have some pretty good photo montages of what it looked like in 2003 on photo paper, although it was bit overcast. None the less, the detail might show up. Even in summer, you could see little spindrift slides in front of the train windows. All told, an awesome place of climbing history. Ugh. I'm on dial-up so the photos are loading slowly. So let's see, the East face would be on the left of the Eiger as viewed from Grindelwald I think. So Kleine Scheidegg where the rail line passes through must not have been affected.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
alex234
Jul 18, 2006, 11:07 PM
Post #24 of 51
(32023 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 19, 2004
Posts: 89
|
In reply to: Anyone who persists in believing global warming is not a reality and a grim one is either a fool, an imbecile or a Republican. funny george bush is all three of those......no worries though im sure soon enough we will be at war with israel too and all die before the environment effects us anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
secretagent
Jul 19, 2006, 7:17 PM
Post #25 of 51
(32023 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 15, 2006
Posts: 99
|
For all you people who have been debating this matter, I found it funny that the artical had this to say.
In reply to: But there's nothing to indicate that unusually warm weather is specifically responsible for this collapse on the Eiger. And geologists are at pains to point out that such rockfalls are a natural part of the process by which mountains rise and ultimately fall. "This is just part of the mountain cycle — it would have happened anyway," says Christopher Kilburn of University College London, who studies landslides at the university's Benfield Hazard Research Centre. "Mountains are fundamentally unstable, otherwise they would just get taller and taller," Goudie explains. "The point does come where they get too tall for their own good."
|
|
|
|
|
|