Last month I mentioned that I would be offering some science facts. To do so I will use the topic of glaciers as an example of how misconceptions can occur and be perpetuated.

In the many discussions about global warming, simplistic statements about glaciers have been made which show a lack of understanding of how natural processes and geographical location influence the nature of glaciers.

Googling "glacier" is quicker than hauling out one of my old textbooks. However, as I began compiling information, I was disappointed and somewhat surprised at the poor and at times incorrect definitions I found. One of the worst is a definition for glacier from MSN Encarta: Glacier, Noun, Definition, ice mass: a large body of continuously accumulating ice and compacted snow, formed in mountain valleys or at the poles, that deform under its own weight and slowly moves.

At first glance this definition may seem OK, but if we look a little longer at it, we can find some errors that render it a poor definition. First is the use of the word "continuously." Accumulation of ice and snow, which form glaciers, is not continuous, accumulation is intermittent, and in the long term, accumulation occurs much the same way that precipitation occurs in the rest of the world, with seasonal highs and lows. And the overall mass of a glacier may fluctuate up and down over the span of a few to thousands of years. A glacier could also stay relatively stable for variable periods of time.

Another problem with this definition is the use of the plural "poles." It is true that the largest glacial mass is situated on the Antarctic continent located at the South Pole; however there is no landmass at the North Pole and thus there are no glaciers there. There is plenty of ice, but ice in the seas is not considered glacial. Glaciers occur only on land where gravity can cause accumulations to deform and flow.

I use the preceding poor definition as an example of how people can become misinformed when something as basic as an Internet dictionary is inaccurate.

This reminds me of an interesting and sadly humorous story showing one of Rush Limbaugh's stupid and misinformed statements. He is quoted as having said, "Even if the polar ice caps melted, there would be no rise in ocean levels. …After all, if you have a glass of water with ice cubes in it, as the ice melts, it simply turns to liquid and the water level in the glass remains the same." The problem with this idiotic statement is that the vast majority of ice on this planet is on land, above sea level, which means that if it all melted, it would add quite a bit to sea levels.

Glaciology is one of those "geo" sciences that I find very intriguing and enjoyable to study. Glaciers are one of the most powerful phenomena on the planet and glaciers are affected by many environmental factors: how far north or south of the equator they are they? Are they near the oceans or are they inland? How far above sea level is the glacier. What is the amount of heat in the underlying rocks and the angle of slope where the glacier is situated. But the force of gravity is what creates a glacier by forcing the ice mass to flow. And of course the glacier's own size also plays a role in how much solar energy is reflected from its surface.

Glaciers tend to straighten out curves in canyons and leaves behind U-shaped channels by way of their erosional processes. They carry and deposit huge loads of debris, and their melt waters cause further erosion and deposition. There are many more interesting aspects to glaciers, but that is enough for now.

Getting back to the question of global warming, I would like to conclude with a few comments.

I am convinced that six billion humans affect the environment in a number of ways. The degree to which human activity contributes to climate change is still being argued and studied, but human effect is not zero, as some would contend.

While global warming is a significant problem, I feel we are spending too much time simply arguing over it, rather than working on solutions. We should be working on reducing pollution of all types because it is the right thing to do. Polluting is not some sort of "first right" granted to a would-be polluter, a "right" that often becomes a mess the rest of us has to contend with, by cleaning up the mess left behind or by attempting to force the polluter to deal with the mess themselves.

Being responsible for the "waste products" that we produce and making their disposition a part of the cost of doing business is the right thing to do. If somehow we could convince our collective selves of that, many of the problems of environmental degradation would obviously go away or at least be manageable.

But if we are to argue any of these environmental issues as we will and as we should, it will do no good for either side of the debate to proceed with bad information and misconceptions. We should always endeavor to be factually informed.

Next month's message will not have such a heavy scientific theme. I look forward to seeing you at the upcoming debate, as well as the next general meeting.

--Robert Lane
President, HoU