Himalayan glaciers will shrink even if temperatures hold steady, study says

Nov 16, 2012
The Lunana region of Bhutan.

(Phys.org)—Come rain or shine, or even snow, some glaciers of the Himalayas will continue shrinking for many years to come.

The forecast by Brigham Young University geology professor Summer Rupper comes after her research on Bhutan, a region in the bull's-eye of the monsoonal Himalayas. Published in , Rupper's most conservative findings indicate that even if climate remained steady, almost 10 percent of Bhutan's glaciers would vanish within the next few decades. What's more, the amount of melt water coming off these glaciers could drop by 30 percent.

Rupper says increasing temperatures are just one behind glacier retreat. A number of climate factors such as wind, humidity, and can affect how glaciers behave. With some Bhutanese glaciers as long as 13 miles, an imbalance in any of these areas can take them decades to completely respond.

"These particular glaciers have seen so much warming in the past few decades that they're currently playing lots of catch up," Rupper explains.

Target glacier near Rinchen Zoe La, Bhutan. Base camp is located on the moraines in the foreground.

In fact, rates in Bhutan would need to almost double to avoid glacier retreat, but it's not a likely scenario because warmer temperatures lead to instead of snow. If glaciers continue to lose more water than they gain, the combination of more rain and more glacial melt will increase the of flooding—which can be devastating to neighboring villages.

"Much of the world's population is just downstream of the ," Rupper points out. "A lot of culture and history could be lost, not just for Bhutan but for neighboring nations facing the same risks."

To illustrate the of such an outcome, Rupper took her research one moderate step further. Her results show if temperatures were to rise just 1 degree Celsius, the Bhutanese glaciers would shrink by 25 percent and the annual melt water would drop by as much as 65 percent. With climate continuing to warm, such a prediction is not altogether unlikely, especially given the years it can take for glaciers to react to change.

Graduate student Josh Maurer and Professor Summer Rupper on the glacier seen in the previous photo.

To make more precise predictions for Bhutan, Rupper and BYU graduate students Landon Burgener and Josh Maurer joined researchers from Columbia University, the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, NASA and Bhutan's Department of Hydro-Meteorological Services. Together, they trekked through rainforests and barren cliffs to reach some of the world's most remote blocks of ice. There they placed a weather station and glacier monitoring equipment that can be used to gather real-time data in the months and years to follow.

"It took seven days just to get to the target glacier," Rupper recounts, having returned in October. "For our pack animals, horsemen and guides, that terrain and elevation are a way of life, but I'll admit the westerners in the group were a bit slower-moving."

Rupper's forecasts and fieldwork are among the first to look at in Bhutan, and the government hopes to use her research to make long-term decisions about the nation's water resources and flooding hazards.

"They could potentially have a better idea of where best to fortify homes or build new power plants," Rupper says. "Hopefully, good science can lead to good engineering solutions for the changes we're likely to witness in the coming decades."

Explore further: Scientists stalk coastal killer

More information: www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2012GL053010.shtml

Related Stories

The mysterious glaciers that grew when Asia heated up

Aug 27, 2009

Long ago a group of Himalayan glaciers grew by several kilometers even while Central Asia's climate warmed up to six degrees Celsius. BYU professor Summer Rupper's analysis attributes much of the glacial growth to increased ...

Glaciers feeding Ganges may melt down

Jul 01, 2005

Indian scientists say carbon dioxide and other emissions will cause the melt down of glaciers feeding the Ganges River before the century's end.

Scientists confirm Himalayan glacial melting

Dec 05, 2011

Glaciers in the Himalayas have shrunk by as much as a fifth in just 30 years, scientists have claimed in the first authoritative confirmation of the effects of climate change on the region.

2 more glaciers gone from Glacier National Park

Apr 07, 2010

(AP) -- Glacier National Park has lost two more of its namesake moving icefields to climate change, which is shrinking the rivers of ice until they grind to a halt, a government researcher said Wednesday.

China's glaciers in meltdown mode: study

Oct 25, 2011

Sharp increases in temperature driven by global warming are melting China's Himalayan glaciers, an impact that threatens habitats, tourism and economic development, says a study released Tuesday.

Recommended for you

Scientists stalk coastal killer

22 minutes ago

For much of Wednesday, a small group of volunteers and researchers walked in and out of the surf testing a new form of surveillance on the biggest killer of beach swimmers - rip currents.

Fires in Central Africa During July 2014

14 hours ago

Hundreds of fires covered central Africa in mid-July 2014, as the annual fire season continues across the region. Multiple red hotspots, which indicate areas of increased temperatures, are heavily sprinkled ...

NASA's HS3 mission spotlight: The HIRAD instrument

Jul 24, 2014

The Hurricane Imaging Radiometer, known as HIRAD, will fly aboard one of two unmanned Global Hawk aircraft during NASA's Hurricane Severe Storm Sentinel or HS3 mission from Wallops beginning August 26 through ...

User comments : 44

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

sender
1.7 / 5 (18) Nov 16, 2012
Sweet, now quadrillions in raw resources open up to the public.
Maggnus
3.8 / 5 (17) Nov 16, 2012
What an incredibly stupid, naive, uninformed comment.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 16, 2012
No mention was made of ablation.
djr
4.2 / 5 (10) Nov 16, 2012
"No mention was made of ablation" Why would you feel they need to mention ablation? "Ablation refers to the melting of snow or ice that runs off the glacier" http://en.wikiped...Ablation

This article is talking about the retreat of the glacier. They mentioned a number of processes that contribute to that retreat. Why do you think it would change anything to say the word ablation. The point seems to be that the glacier is retreating.
Omnishambles
1.7 / 5 (12) Nov 16, 2012
"almost 10 percent of Bhutan's glaciers would vanish within the next few decades. What's more, the amount of melt water coming off these glaciers could drop by 30 percent"

This makes no sense. If the melting rate of glaciers has increased, why would the melt water runoff decrease instead of increase?

djr
4 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2012
If the melting rate of glaciers has increased, why would the melt water runoff decrease instead of increase?

If the glaciers get smaller - then there is less volume to melt - and thus less run off. Notice the article said 10 percent could disapear - but the other 90 percent could shrink dramatically - leaving less run off - yes?
Omnishambles
1.7 / 5 (11) Nov 17, 2012
"but the other 90% could shrink dramatically".

Hmmmm...should this occur (and it would take many decades at least)this melting process would actually increase the flow from that of a steady state condition in which glaciers are not retreating.
djr
3.8 / 5 (12) Nov 17, 2012
this melting process would actually increase the flow from that of a steady state condition in which glaciers are not retreating.

You are just making up facts. If one of the factors influencing the retreat of glaciers is reduced precipitation - then the net run off could certainly decrease. If you are so sure that you have better information than these researchers who have been studying this stuff for decades - and actually spend time on glaciers - why don't you write a paper on the subject - and submit it for publication? It is of course easier to be an arm chair know it all, than to actually go do so some science.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 17, 2012
No mention was made of ablation.

Sorry, the correct term is sublimation.
djr
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 17, 2012
"Sorry, the correct term is sublimation."

sublimation is the transition of a material directly from a solid state - into a gaseous state - without the intermediate step of becoming a liquid. This does happen on the surface of snow fields when the sun shines on them. http://en.wikiped...ansition I still don't see why you feel it would be important for these researchers to mention sublimation - it is just one component of the larger process of the retreat of glaciers.
ubavontuba
2.1 / 5 (14) Nov 17, 2012
Himalayan glaciers will shrink even if temperatures hold steady, study says
What a bunch of crap.

Study after recent study has found the Himalayan glaciers are not significantly shrinking, and some studies show they're stable, or even growing.

State of Himalayan glaciers less alarming than feared

No ice loss seen in major Himalayan glaciers: scientists

Seriously, is there no actual review when it comes to alarmist science claims now?

djr
4.2 / 5 (10) Nov 17, 2012
"Study after recent study has found the Himalayan glaciers are not significantly shrinking..."

You don't even take the time to read the articles you yourself reference. Here is a quote from the first article Uba - "The majority of the Himalayan glaciers are shrinking, but much less rapidly than predicted earlier"

Same conclusion from your second article - "In February, a US-led study published in Nature found that ice loss from the Himalayas was significant but had been badly over-estimated." Overestimated does not equate to "not significantly shrinking...or stable or even growing". All the studies I looked at totally contradicted your statement - concluding that Himalayan glaciers are indeed retreating. Here is one - http://blogs.tele...entists/

So much for your insistence on facts uba....
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (14) Nov 18, 2012
You don't even take the time to read the articles you yourself reference. Here is a quote from the first article Uba - "The majority of the Himalayan glaciers are shrinking, but much less rapidly than predicted earlier"
How is that defining anything differently than the very title to which I linked?

Same conclusion from your second article - "In February, a US-led study published in Nature found that ice loss from the Himalayas was significant but had been badly over-estimated." Overestimated does not equate to "not significantly shrinking...or stable or even growing".
Are you a moron? That was a reference to a previous study, not the study described by the article.

The article actually claims: "...from 2000 and 2008 ...the glaciers had not lost mass over this period and may even have grown a tiny bit, at 0.11 millimetres (0.04 of an inch) per year."

And: "...the glaciers are stable for the time being,"

Continued...
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (14) Nov 18, 2012
All the studies I looked at totally contradicted your statement - concluding that Himalayan glaciers are indeed retreating.
It must be nice for you to see only what you want to see. Too bad it makes you appear the fool to anyone with a brain.

Here is one -
Right. That's one where the scientists were obviously biased and were specifically looking for shrinkage, and shrinkage only (published in "Nature Climate Change", no less). Apparently, they deliberately went back to a higher ice volume era so they can say, "See? The ice is retreating." (there was a slight global cooling between 1950 and 1980)

Heck, maybe next time they'll go all the way back to the last ice age!

Even so, your article referenced a recent 7 year study (using primarily more current data) which states the glaciers are more stable than previously thought.

So much for your insistence on facts uba....
So much for your comprehension skills djr....
zz5555
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2012
So there seems to be 4 papers under discussion: the current paper (Rupper, et al (2012)), the 1st paper from uba (Bolch, et al (2012)), the 2nd paper from uba (Gardelle, et al (2012)), and the paper linked to by djr - once you get through all the links - (Yao, et al (2012)). Now, according to the papers that uba linked to, both Bolch, et al (2012) and (Gardelle, et al (2012) are concerned with the Karakoram region of the Himalayas. The Karakoram range is located on the west side of India while Bhutan (the area of interest for Rupper, et al (2012)) is located far away, east of India. Both of uba's papers mention that melting in the Karakoram region is different from other regions of the Himalayas, so neither the Bolch nor the Gardelle papers are really relevant to the discussion about Rupper. Continued...
zz5555
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 18, 2012
Furthermore, one of the complaints about the Bolch study was that the GRACE satellite only detects mass changes. As such, it won't really see the melting of the glaciers that results in glacier lakes. One of the things that the Yao paper found was that glacier lakes had increased, so this at least partially refutes the Bolch study. Uba mentions that Yao discuss the period from 1950 to 1980, but fails to indicate a reason for doing that. If the glacier is retreating, it's retreating. It doesn't really matter it's starting point when looking at the anomalies. But if the 30 year period of Yao is too short for uba, what are we to think of the 10 year period for Gardelle? Or the < 10 year period for Bolch? And the claim that Yao is biased because, why? It doesn't match uba's preconceived political philosophies?
djr
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 18, 2012
You referred to this study as "a bunch of crap". You then stated that 'Study after recent study has found the Himalayan glaciers are not significantly shrinking" You then referenced two articles that contradicted your statement - both articles indicated that the Himalayan glaciers are certainly retreating - although less than stated by some other research. A quick google search can find plenty of work that supports the premise that the Himalayan glaciers are in fact retreating - in contradiction to your arrogant statement that this work is "a bunch of crap". You are a denialist - and an arrogant one at that.

There is nothing wrong with my comprehension.
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (11) Nov 18, 2012
the papers that uba linked to, both Bolch, et al (2012) and (Gardelle, et al (2012) are concerned with the Karakoram region of the Himalayas. The Karakoram range is located on the west side of India while Bhutan (the area of interest for Rupper, et al (2012)) is located far away, east of India.
Are you an idgit? My first article reference is about the entire Himalayan range and only focuses on the Karakoram to state this region is particularly stable. The paper it links to discusses the Bhutan glaciers several times. How could you miss it?

Ex.: "In Bhutan, glaciers with large accumulation areas reach velocities of 100 to 200 m year."

However, the second article is indeed about the Karakoram glaciers, but it should be noted this is where the heaviest Asian glaciation resides (28-50% of the Karakoram Range is glaciated, compared to only 8-12% for the Himalaya).

Continued...

ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (12) Nov 18, 2012
one of the complaints about the Bolch study was that the GRACE satellite only detects mass changes.
Again, are you an idgit? This study used multiple sources.

From the article:

"The scientists took all the existing measurements of length, area and volume changes and mass budgets into account for their study."

...And the paper specifically states the GRACE data is unreliable.

"(GRACE) satellite measurements ...implies substantial uncertainties."

Uba mentions that Yao discuss the period from 1950 to 1980, but fails to indicate a reason for doing that.
This just boggles me. I specifically accused them of choosing this period for its relatively high glaciation.

If the glacier is retreating, it's retreating. It doesn't really matter it's starting point when looking at the anomalies.
So you're saying it's okay to raise the AGW alarm because the Pleistocene glaciers have retreated? (sarcasm)

Continued...

ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (10) Nov 18, 2012
One of the things that the Yao paper found was that glacier lakes had increased, so this at least partially refutes the Bolch study.
How did you miss this in the Bolch study:

"A further serious implication of glacier recession is the development of moraine-dammed glacial lakes..."

But if the 30 year period of Yao is too short for uba,
When did I supposedly suggest that?

what are we to think of the 10 year period for Gardelle? Or the < 10 year period for Bolch?
They're much more relevant to current conditions.

And the claim that Yao is biased because, why? It doesn't match uba's preconceived political philosophies?
Where does this come from?

I'm beginning to wonder if AGW alarmists have specialized impairments. It seems they simply can't see or absorb disfavored data, spread out right in front of them!

Maggnus
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 18, 2012
It is clear that ubavontuba does not actually read through the data he cherry-picks to support his position. As per his usual methodology, he sees one line taken out of context that he thinks supports his position and jumps up and down yelling "See! See!".

He is too daft to realize that "less warming than expected" is still warming.

Typical of his ongoing campaign of deliberate obtuseness.
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (11) Nov 18, 2012
You referred to this study as "a bunch of crap". You then stated that 'Study after recent study has found the Himalayan glaciers are not significantly shrinking" You then referenced two articles that contradicted your statement
Apparently, you're having some difficulty reading. Perhaps you need to have your eyes checked?

- both articles indicated that the Himalayan glaciers are certainly retreating - although less than stated by some other research.
Hence the phrase: "not significantly shrinking" (DUH!)

A quick google search can find plenty of work that supports the premise that the Himalayan glaciers are in fact retreating -
Handwaving nonsense. I'm sure they're are plenty such, as the IPCC, itself, got in a lot of trouble for making these false claims. But subsequently better research and review have found these claims to be false.

Why is it you only see what you want to see?

Continued...

ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (11) Nov 18, 2012
in contradiction to your arrogant statement that this work is "a bunch of crap".
Get it straight. I quoted the alarmist headline of the Phys.org article and said it's a bunch of crap. In this case, I did not say the specific Bhutan study, itself, was a bunch of crap.

However, this study has many flaws, one of which is the use of models to make regional predictions of an inherently chaotic system.

djr
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 18, 2012
You used the term "bunch of crap" - parse things all you want - you used the term when discussing a very hard earned piece of research. You are arrogant.

Why is it you only see what you want to see?

I am not the one attacking hard earned research - attacking science. You are. I am the one defending the process of science. If you are so all knowing as to understand that this research has "many flaws" - then publish a paper to that effect - and become famous. As an aside - and as already pointed out - the references you qouted - to support your all knowing exposition of this research as a "bunch of crap" contradicted your own position. It seems clear to me where the 'crap' is.

ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (11) Nov 18, 2012
It is clear that ubavontuba does not actually read through the data he cherry-picks to support his position. As per his usual methodology, he sees one line taken out of context that he thinks supports his position and jumps up and down yelling "See! See!".
Funny that you couldn't provide any specifics. Are obtuse hand-waving personal attacks all you can muster?

He is too daft to realize that "less warming than expected" is still warming.
When did I supposedly suggest otherwise?

Typical of his ongoing campaign of deliberate obtuseness.
Naw, that's the M. O. (mode of operation) of the warming alarmists. As I've pointed out repeatedly, they simply dismiss any data they don't like.

djr
4 / 5 (8) Nov 18, 2012
"they simply dismiss any data they don't like."

So do you dismiss this data Uba? Lt me give you a quote to put against your all knowing claim that "Himalayan glaciers are not significantly shrinking"

"the majority of Himalayan glaciers are passing through a phase of recession, which is a worldwide phenomenon."

http://pib.nic.in...id=74091

Who is ignoring data????
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 18, 2012
You used the term "bunch of crap" - parse things all you want - you used the term when discussing a very hard earned piece of research. You are arrogant.
Parse things as you want, but my "bunch of crap" statement was directly addressing the title, as demonstrated by my continuing text which addresses the Himalaya, in general (and not specifically the Bhutan).

I am not the one attacking hard earned research - attacking science. You are.
I specifically attacked an alarmist claim, and specifically clarified this by stating so afterward, as well.

I am the one defending the process of science.
No, supporting "science" simply because it claims to be science is not actually supporting science.

If you are so all knowing as to understand that this research has "many flaws" - then publish a paper to that effect - and become famous.
Plenty of research, in this regard, is already published. One need only look.

Continued...

ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 18, 2012
As an aside - and as already pointed out - the references you qouted - to support your all knowing exposition of this research as a "bunch of crap" contradicted your own position.
Lacking any secific references, this is just more of your hand-waving nonsense. Obviously, I've read, understood, and accurately quoted from my references, wheras you, Maggnus, and zz5555 apparently can't be bothered.

It seems clear to me where the 'crap' is.
Indeed.

ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (10) Nov 18, 2012
"they simply dismiss any data they don't like."

So do you dismiss this data Uba? Lt me give you a quote to put against your all knowing claim that "Himalayan glaciers are not significantly shrinking"

"the majority of Himalayan glaciers are passing through a phase of recession, which is a worldwide phenomenon."

http://pib.nic.in...id=74091

Who is ignoring data????
Really, a one line statement from a press release is all you could muster?

How about quoting the rest of it:

"The recession of glaciers is a part of the natural cyclic process of changes in size and other attributes of the glaciers."

...Please, you're making this way to easy... BLAM! ...I'm having a harder time of it... BLAM! .. with these dang fish... BLAM! ...in this here barrel... BLAM!

LOL.

djr
4 / 5 (8) Nov 18, 2012
The recession of glaciers is a part of the natural cyclic process of changes in size and other attributes of the glaciers

Except that the point being debated is whether or not the glaciers are retreating - so as usual you move the bar and pretend we are discussing the reason behind the retreat - as opposed to your all knowing statement that they are not significantly shrinking.

Blam blam fish in a barrel is extremely child like.

Really, a one line statement from a press release is all you could muster?

The entire press release from the Indian Government (who definitely know more than you about Himalayan glaciers) - was actually quiet informative - and supports the conclusion that you don't know what you are talking about - but can't help feeling the need to insult hard earned research conclusions any way. There is plenty more supportive information out there if you are interested - but I sense your are more interested in playing stupid - blam blam fish in a barrel.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 18, 2012
Except that the point being debated is whether or not the glaciers are retreating - so as usual you move the bar and pretend we are discussing the reason behind the retreat - as opposed to your all knowing statement that they are not significantly shrinking.
No, I was exposing your reference for its significant weaknesses.

Blam blam fish in a barrel is extremely child like.
I'll take that as a compliment. Thank you.

The entire press release from the Indian Government (who definitely know more than you about Himalayan glaciers) - was actually quiet informative - and supports the conclusion that you don't know what you are talking about - but can't help feeling the need to insult hard earned research conclusions any way.
So why didn't you link to the research?

There is plenty more supportive information out there if you are interested - but I sense your are more interested in playing stupid - blam blam fish in a barrel.
It's certainly more fun.

djr
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 18, 2012
"It's certainly more fun" Understood - you are very immature - and think it is fun to play stupid childish games over the internet. Why do I care? I should not.. Thing is - I live in a f**ked up culture. I live in Oklahoma U.S.A. The population is highly uneducated - and value playing stupid games (could be O.U. against O.S.U., the Thunder against some other basketball team - or childish games like blam blam). Problem for me is that I value science, and knowledge, and find myself very lonely here. I read physorg because of my love of science, and I cannot get away from the uneducated jerks like yourself, Rygg, etc - who hate science, but cannot be content to live in their own child like - uneducated worlds. They have to spam intelligent sites like physorg with their "we know better than all the research scientists out their - as we sit in our front room eating chips, drinking coke, and watching 'Dancing with the stars' - sigh - so once in a while I say my piece.
VendicarD
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 18, 2012
I have caught UbVonTard telling several hundred lies over the last year.

Often they are the same lie repeated over and over again long after the lie was conclusively shown to be a lie.

UbVonTard, like all Conservatives that I have ever encountered is a Congenital and perpetual liar.
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 19, 2012
you are very immature
Actually, I find your "poor me, I'm so alone" mentality to be the true mark of immaturity. I'm guessing you're a high-achieving male student in middle school or high school. I had the same problems at your age, and my son (who never met a math test he didn't like) also has similar problems. However, as it turns out, these problems are purely a matter of perspective. Your view of the world is skewed through a lack of experience.

Problem for me is that I value science, and knowledge, and find myself very lonely here.
Social skills are probably the hardest skill set for the "intellectually gifted" to learn. They're so busy thinking how much they're above the tripe others spew that they rarely learn to actually pay attention and get along.

You need to get out there and join in. You don't always have to be the best, or even any good at all. Go with a sense of humor. Admit you're terrible at sports (or whatever) and need help. Play. Have fun.

ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 19, 2012
I read physorg because of my love of science,
If you really valued science,and had the skills to appreciate it everywhere you find it, then you'd learn to appreciate sports and games, and ...whatever.

Virtually every sport and game is LOADED with science. Baseball, for instance is all about the kinetic energy delivered to the ball and statistics. Statisticians practically rule the game!

American Football may appear brutish, but the science of strategy prevails. And the oddly shaped ball is a study in chaos.

And the professional sports players are some of the most intellectually gifted people in the world. Their ability to quickly size up and exploit an opportunity is almost magical.

Just moving your body is loaded with science. Just think of the multitude of operations your brain must perform to simply swing a bat. And, your body has to be in tune with your mind for this to work, at all!

Science is where you find it.

djr
5 / 5 (4) Nov 19, 2012
I'm guessing you're a high-achieving male student in middle school or high school. Your psychoanalysis is so far off base. I am 56 years old, and have a masters degree in psychology. Your defense of sports is interesting. I don't mind people who play sports - it is the couch potato's who spend their lives rooting for this team or that team that bother me. My hobbies are gardening, and kayaking - both participant sports with plenty of science. I only feel sorry for myself in that I understand that we could be so much more advanced as a species if we learned to value education and science. My wife is a school teacher. You should see the awful state of our schools here in Oklahoma - the prisons have much more money. So it is not so much self pity, as sadness at the state of the human condition - and I see hard working researchers - spending their lives climbing around glaciers - trying to further our science and knowledge - and disrespected and devalued with glib comments.
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 20, 2012
Your psychoanalysis is so far off base. I am 56 years old, and have a masters degree in psychology.
Coulda' fooled me. But the psych majors I've met do seem to lack social skills. I wonder if this drives them to it?

Your defense of sports is interesting. I don't mind people who play sports - it is the couch potato's who spend their lives rooting for this team or that team that bother me.
Why? What harm are they causing?

I only feel sorry for myself in that I understand that we could be so much more advanced as a species if we learned to value education and science.
Really? You think that's all there is to it? Maybe you should take a few history classes. Perhaps a class on modern (technological) warfare.

Science is not a moral model.

My wife is a school teacher. You should see the awful state of our schools here in Oklahoma - the prisons have much more money.
Naturally. Schools (generally speaking) do not house guarded felons 24/7.

Cont....

ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 20, 2012
So it is not so much self pity, as sadness at the state of the human condition.
Cheer up. Statistically speaking, the world is enjoying less violence than ever before.

Stats show a peaceful world

and I see hard working researchers - spending their lives climbing around glaciers - trying to further our science and knowledge - and disrespected and devalued with glib comments.
When the science is founded on sound principles, they have my deepest respect. But I'll argue that bad science is worse than no science, at all.

djr
4 / 5 (4) Nov 20, 2012
"Why? What harm are they causing?" As usual you miss the point. I live in a f**ked up society - and that saddens me. I understand that as we evolve - we will move beyond childish things such as superstition, war, violence etc. I would like to see that day. We should be putting our resources into medical science - not war and pointless games like football. The stakes are high. I don't think you understand that. My father died at age 50 of cancer. He never saw his grand children. Will I see my grand children - or will cancer take me before we have developed a treatment? So I root for a smarter, wiser society - and ludites like yourself think it is fun to play blam blam - and devalue science - and hold back our progress. We will evolve - but people like you are slowing us down. The stakes are high....
djr
3 / 5 (4) Nov 20, 2012
"When the science is founded on sound principles" Science is founded on sound principles - look, test, evaluate, report etc. etc. It is you who makes it more complicated...
Lurker2358
2 / 5 (4) Nov 22, 2012
djr:

My father died at 50 too. I feel much the same way as you about these things.

Any rational civilization would pay professional athletes and other entertainers the least, and would pay doctors and engineers most.

There ought to be a salary cap in this country, as well as a profit margin cap to avoid scalping. No person should make more in salary than an amount equaling one dollar less than President of the U.S.

If we did this, the price of almost everything imaginable would be cheaper, and more resources would be available for medical and engineering research.

One of the ironies of American democracy is that if I had fewer "freedoms" I'd actually be more free!
VendicarD
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 22, 2012
Exactly. Here in the socialsit state I live in, I regularly leave my home unlocked, sleep with the doors unlocked and the windows open, unconerned about my safety or loss of my posessions.

I walk the streets at all hours of the day or night, unconcerned for my safety, irrespective of where I am.

These are freedoms that are virtually unknown in the Money Grubbing state of America.

"One of the ironies of American democracy is that if I had fewer "freedoms" I'd actually be more free!" - Lurker
djr
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 22, 2012
"sleep with the doors unlocked and the windows open, unconerned about my safety or loss of my posessions."

Come now Vendi - you show total disregard for the central principles of capitalism - humans are selfish and greedy - they will become rich taking what ever they can from others. This is the natural order of all things - it can never be different. Can it????
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Nov 26, 2012
"Why? What harm are they causing?" As usual you miss the point. I live in a f**ked up society - and that saddens me. I understand that as we evolve - we will move beyond childish things such as superstition, war, violence etc. I would like to see that day. We should be putting our resources into medical science - not war and pointless games like football. The stakes are high. I don't think you understand that. My father died at age 50 of cancer. He never saw his grand children. Will I see my grand children - or will cancer take me before we have developed a treatment? So I root for a smarter, wiser society - and ludites like yourself think it is fun to play blam blam - and devalue science - and hold back our progress. We will evolve - but people like you are slowing us down. The stakes are high....
You are such an idiot. It's the economy the sports fans and blue collar folks build and maintain which makes research possible. Not everyone can be a researcher.