People who believe in AGW are becoming so desperate to convince others that the science is on their side that they are grasping at any weather related phenomenon to spin it in their favor. There have been several recent mountaineering deaths in various parts of the world in the late spring/early summer of 2012. Mont Blanc in the French Alps in July, Mt McKinley in Denali National Park in Alaska in June and Mt Everest in May have all suffered fatalities during the 2012 climbing season.
The Mt McKinley Mountaineering summaries can be seen here. Yearly summaries are produced by Accidents in North American Mountaineering published by the American Alpine Club. Summaries of fatalities on Mt McKinley from 1967 to 1992 here.
So, the point of this post is to point out that warmists often jump to conclusions without checking facts that are available as above. How do we know global warming is making it 'steadily riskier' for mtn climbers? Bill didn't check any stats.
Shock: Warmists may not have hard data to back up their claim that CO2 is making mountain climbing "steadily riskier"
NYTimes
Twitter / billmckibben
Stats for other Himalayan peaks can be found at the same source above.
Up until 1990, the Cho Oyu fatality rate was nearly 7%. But from 1990 until today, there have been 24 climbers who died, and about 1,236 summiteers. Thus the rate has lessened to about 2% – less than half of the modern Everest fatality rate of 4.4%.
Up until 1990, the Dhaulagiri fatality rate was 31%. But from 1990 until today, there have been 22 climbers who died, and 203 summiteers. Thus the rate diminished to 11% – still more than double the modern Everest fatality rate of 4.4%.
With an overall fatality rate of 40.77% and modern fatality rate decreased to 19.7%, Annapurna is statistically four times more dangerous than Everest today.
With an overall fatality rate of 21.67% and modern fatality rate decreased to 13.42%, Manaslu is statistically more dangerous than Everest today.
As we can see the rates for the Himalayan mountains have been decreasing. This makes some sense in that humans can learn and devise better climbing gear and take better precautions against the weather found on the mountain. Rescue methods would also have improved over time. However, it should be noted that an avalanche could bias the statistics upward for any one year if many climbers are caught in one.
So, is CO2 producing a 'higher level of energy' in the atmosphere? How is that measured? Where are the graphs? And how does the presence of heat trapping CO2, a trace gas essential to life on Earth, manage to generate both heat and cold in the mountains? Mountain climbing is a dangerous activity and people will lose their lives from time to time. But we are seeing the opposite effect. So can we conclude that more CO2 in the atmosphere leads to 'less risky' climbing?
By the logic of the warmist it seems so although it is my suspicion that in the world of mountain climbing there is no average day. You didn't know what you were going to get in the past any more than you do now. It is cold and snowy on the mountains of the world. Bad stuff will happen in such an inclement environment. It did in the past when CO2 was at lower concentrations and it is now. CO2 has nothing to do with it.
Global warming making things steadily riskier for mtn climbers--conditions have turned unpredictable http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/us/ …Everest news - Mount Everest by climbers
[2003] Up to 1990 the Everest fatality rate is a whopping 37%, yet from 1990 until today the rate has dropped to 4.4%.
Stats for other Himalayan peaks can be found at the same source above.
Up until 1990, the Cho Oyu fatality rate was nearly 7%. But from 1990 until today, there have been 24 climbers who died, and about 1,236 summiteers. Thus the rate has lessened to about 2% – less than half of the modern Everest fatality rate of 4.4%.
Up until 1990, the Dhaulagiri fatality rate was 31%. But from 1990 until today, there have been 22 climbers who died, and 203 summiteers. Thus the rate diminished to 11% – still more than double the modern Everest fatality rate of 4.4%.
With an overall fatality rate of 40.77% and modern fatality rate decreased to 19.7%, Annapurna is statistically four times more dangerous than Everest today.
With an overall fatality rate of 21.67% and modern fatality rate decreased to 13.42%, Manaslu is statistically more dangerous than Everest today.
As we can see the rates for the Himalayan mountains have been decreasing. This makes some sense in that humans can learn and devise better climbing gear and take better precautions against the weather found on the mountain. Rescue methods would also have improved over time. However, it should be noted that an avalanche could bias the statistics upward for any one year if many climbers are caught in one.
So, is CO2 producing a 'higher level of energy' in the atmosphere? How is that measured? Where are the graphs? And how does the presence of heat trapping CO2, a trace gas essential to life on Earth, manage to generate both heat and cold in the mountains? Mountain climbing is a dangerous activity and people will lose their lives from time to time. But we are seeing the opposite effect. So can we conclude that more CO2 in the atmosphere leads to 'less risky' climbing?
By the logic of the warmist it seems so although it is my suspicion that in the world of mountain climbing there is no average day. You didn't know what you were going to get in the past any more than you do now. It is cold and snowy on the mountains of the world. Bad stuff will happen in such an inclement environment. It did in the past when CO2 was at lower concentrations and it is now. CO2 has nothing to do with it.
No comments:
Post a Comment