BethesdaWX Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/27/new-science-on-himilayan-glaciers-shows-debris-fields-to-be-a-regulating-factor-in-melting/ Over 1/2 of the Ice Sheets are Growing, rather than shrinking. Wait...so will they be gone in 2035, or Never? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salbers Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 No, glaciers generally are presently melting at a rate to be gone in about 300 years. We'll see if these rates continue to accelerate or otherwise.The "2035" was a retracted typo apparently, so there isn't any point in rebutting that. Please take the time to read the text more carefully - it appears more glaciers are retreating than advancing in the region: "Bookhagen noted that glaciers in the Karakoram region of Northwestern Himalaya are mostly stagnating. However, glaciers in the Western, Central, and Eastern Himalaya are retreating, with the highest retreat rates –– approximately 8 meters per year –– in the Western Himalayan Mountains. The authors found that half of the studied glaciers in the Karakoram region are stable or advancing, whereas about two-thirds are in retreat elsewhere throughout High Asia. This is in contrast to the prevailing notion that all glaciers in the tropics are retreating." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpha5 Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 Doesnt the melting or advancing of glaciers have more to do with fluctuations in annual precipitation rather than temperature? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salbers Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 Yes, precip has a role as well. However I find it difficult to attribute a worldwide glacier retreat to any worldwide drying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpha5 Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 Yes, precip has a role as well. However I find it difficult to attribute a worldwide glacier retreat to any worldwide drying. Dont get me wrong, I wasnt suggesting temperature did not have an influence as well...but I think a combination of the two would drive any melting/ expanding. Its not just temperature alone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 30, 2011 Author Share Posted January 30, 2011 "Researchers have discovered that contrary to popular belief half of the ice flows in the Karakoram range of the mountains are actually growing rather than shrinking." The finding is one more element in a worldwide political controversy involving global warming. “Controversy about the current state and future evolution of Himalayan glaciers has been stirred up by erroneous reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),” according to the paper. There is no ‘stereotypical’ Himalayan glacier,” said Bookhagen. “This is in clear contrast to the IPCC reports that lumps all Himalayan glaciers together.” Bookhagen noted that glaciers in the Karakoram region of Northwestern Himalaya are mostly stagnating. However, glaciers in the Western, Central, and Eastern Himalaya are retreating, with the highest retreat rates –– approximately 8 meters per year –– in the Western Himalayan Mountains. The authors found that half of the studied glaciers in the Karakoram region are stable or advancing, whereas about two-thirds are in retreat elsewhere throughout High Asia. This is in contrast to the prevailing notion that all glaciers in the tropics are retreating. FYI, the 2035 date was picked out of a magazine that was already published.....they would have seen the date 2035, and it would have caught their eye. Its called reading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 http://wattsupwithth...tor-in-melting/ Over 1/2 of the Ice Sheets are Growing, rather than shrinking. Wait...so will they be gone in 2035, or Never? Shhh! Don't say that! It doesn't fit well with the alarmists' propaganda! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salbers Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 Unfortunately it also doesn't fit well with the article that is the subject of this thread. The article clearly implies that Himalayan glaciers are mostly (though not all) retreating. We also know from other sources that globally glaciers are mostly in retreat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 Unfortunately it also doesn't fit well with the article that is the subject of this thread. The article clearly implies that Himalayan glaciers are mostly (though not all) retreating. We also know from other sources that globally glaciers are mostly in retreat. Yeah I'm not sure how you deduce that "Himalayan glaciers are not melting" from an article that says "glaciers in the Western, Central, and Eastern Himalaya are retreating." Sounds like a direct contradiction to me but what do I know. Bookhagen noted that glaciers in the Karakoram region of Northwestern Himalaya are mostly stagnating. However, glaciers in the Western, Central, and Eastern Himalaya are retreating, with the highest retreat rates –– approximately 8 meters per year –– in the Western Himalayan Mountains. The authors found that half of the studied glaciers in the Karakoram region are stable or advancing, whereas about two-thirds are in retreat elsewhere throughout High Asia. This is in contrast to the prevailing notion that all glaciers in the tropics are retreating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 30, 2011 Author Share Posted January 30, 2011 Unfortunately it also doesn't fit well with the article that is the subject of this thread. The article clearly implies that Himalayan glaciers are mostly (though not all) retreating. We also know from other sources that globally glaciers are mostly in retreat. About 50% are retreating, and another 50% either stagnating or growing. It depends which glacier region you want to use. Some areas have mostly growing glaciers some have mostly retreating glaciers. Point of the article,you cannot simply state "the himalayan glacier is melting", because there is no stereotypical himalayan glaciers, and, only about 1/2 are melting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salbers Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 Right, but it sounds from the wording that there are more retreating compared with advancing. Hence a net retreat on average over the Himilaya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 30, 2011 Author Share Posted January 30, 2011 Right, but it sounds from the wording that there are more retreating compared with advancing. Hence a net retreat on average over the Himilaya. Yes, but only about 1/2 are retreating, the other half are either growing or halting. Either way, temperature is less of a factor than precipitation in alot of these cases. A warmer world would lead to more precipitation, and that would actually enhance the growth of glaciers which use precip as subject to change. So no, saying "The himalayan glaciers will be gone in 300yrs" is not only false, but saying "the glacier is melting" is very misconstruding. We only have 70yrs of fossil fuels left, and we'll probably be running on clean energy as a majority in 50yrs. Right now, I'm more worried about our laziness in changing to clean energy, rather than the climate. If we run out of fossil fuels before we can effectively run society with clean energy, the human race is doomed. I expect us to warm 0.2C in the next 100yrs due to Anthro enhanced warming, I do not have the time to go into my research as such, at this time, but its there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Yes, but only about 1/2 are retreating, the other half are either growing or halting. No. What it says is that half are retreating, and half are stable or growing in the northwest Himalayas. While in the Western, Northern, and Eastern Himalaya's they are all (or nearly all) retreating. This means that the large majority of glaciers in the Himalayas overall are retreating. This is in direct contradiction to your title "Himalayan Glaciers not melting." I expect us to warm 0.2C in the next 100yrs due to Anthro enhanced warming, I do not have the time to go into my research as such, at this time, but its there. No it is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 31, 2011 Author Share Posted January 31, 2011 No. What it says is that half are retreating, and half are stable or growing in the northwest Himalayas. While in the Western, Northern, and Eastern Himalaya's they are all (or nearly all) retreating. This means that the large majority of glaciers in the Himalayas overall are retreating. This is in direct contradiction to your title "Himalayan Glaciers not melting." No it is not. 1) It depends on the region you're targeting for melt, and whats causing the melt. You cannot clump 2 types of glaciers (& their bases of change) together & state "warming temps are causing the melting in the himalayan glacier"...its apples & oranges dude. 2) Unfortunately, Yes....it is. Its quite clear too. If you wish to debate me over it, lets go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe1946 Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 http://wattsupwithth...tor-in-melting/ Over 1/2 of the Ice Sheets are Growing, rather than shrinking. Wait...so will they be gone in 2035, or Never? It's funny how conservatives spend their whole life looking for this stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 It's funny how conservatives spend their whole life looking for this stuff. Please don't bring politics into this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 31, 2011 Author Share Posted January 31, 2011 It's funny how conservatives spend their whole life looking for this stuff. I'm no conservative, Mr Stereotype. In fact, far from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 1) It depends on the region you're targeting for melt, and whats causing the melt. You cannot clump 2 types of glaciers (& their bases of change) together & state "warming temps are causing the melting in the himalayan glacier"...its apples & oranges dude. Where on earth do you see me saying anything like "warming temps are causing the melting in the himalayan glaciers" ???? I have said nothing of the sort. All I have said is that the title of this thread is in direct contradiction to the article. The article says that glaciers in the North, West, and Eastern Himalayas are shrinking. The only region where even 1/2 are stable is the Northwestern Himalayas. The article does not say anywhere "Himalayan Glaciers Not Melting" which is the erroneous title of this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 1, 2011 Author Share Posted February 1, 2011 Right after I posted it, I actually tried to edit the title to "Himalayan Glaciers not melting in the Karakoram Range" since I left it out, but it won't let me do it. Either way I'd assume you knew what I meant. Do you think that I would purposely title my thread to give a false impression to those viewing it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 You can change the title, simply go to full editor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mencken_Fan Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 The article is disingenuous; wasn't worth my time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clifford Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 No, glaciers generally are presently melting at a rate to be gone in about 300 years. We'll see if these rates continue to accelerate or otherwise.The "2035" was a retracted typo apparently, so there isn't any point in rebutting that. The 2035 date was NEVER A TYPO. It was Political Rhetoric intentionally incorporated into the IPCC report based on non-peer reviewed research. As far as the research that was cited by the IPCC, we'll never know for sure whether it was truly a miscalculation on the part of the researcher, or pure political propaganda. What we really need is a list of all the major Himalayan Glaciers, and detailed information on each one whether it is growing or shrinking, studied over at least a couple of decades. I believe the GRACE project can provide some of the information by essentially weighing different parts of the globe. However, I'm not sure how good of spacial resolution it has. Keep in mind that the size of the glacier (reserve capacity) isn't as important as the ability to buffer seasonal rainflow. I.E. As long as the seasonal rainflow feeding the Ganges and other rivers is buffered, then the total volume of ice just sitting there won't affect India, except in multi-year drought conditions. However, storing adequate "reserves" for 100 consecutive years of drought isn't necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 The 2035 date was NEVER A TYPO. It was Political Rhetoric intentionally incorporated into the IPCC report based on non-peer reviewed research. As far as the research that was cited by the IPCC, we'll never know for sure whether it was truly a miscalculation on the part of the researcher, or pure political propaganda. What we really need is a list of all the major Himalayan Glaciers, and detailed information on each one whether it is growing or shrinking, studied over at least a couple of decades. I believe the GRACE project can provide some of the information by essentially weighing different parts of the globe. However, I'm not sure how good of spacial resolution it has. Keep in mind that the size of the glacier (reserve capacity) isn't as important as the ability to buffer seasonal rainflow. I.E. As long as the seasonal rainflow feeding the Ganges and other rivers is buffered, then the total volume of ice just sitting there won't affect India, except in multi-year drought conditions. However, storing adequate "reserves" for 100 consecutive years of drought isn't necessary. It seems to me that if anyone was trying to deceive the readers of the IPCC reports they would attempt a bit more subtlety than that. No researcher would knowingly allow a figure so obviously in error to be in print. If you lie you will likely get caught and richly deserve the ridicule coming your way. If it was an intentional attempt to deceive then they were idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 It wasn't a typo, but it wasn't intentional either. It was a lack of good available info and improper sourcing. I think it may have been a typo in the source they were using, but the source they were using wasn't a good source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 3, 2011 Author Share Posted February 3, 2011 They pulled the study from a magazine and used it as evidence. flunk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salbers Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 The 2035 date was NEVER A TYPO. It was Political Rhetoric intentionally incorporated into the IPCC report based on non-peer reviewed research. As far as the research that was cited by the IPCC, we'll never know for sure whether it was truly a miscalculation on the part of the researcher, or pure political propaganda. What we really need is a list of all the major Himalayan Glaciers, and detailed information on each one whether it is growing or shrinking, studied over at least a couple of decades. I believe the GRACE project can provide some of the information by essentially weighing different parts of the globe. However, I'm not sure how good of spacial resolution it has. Keep in mind that the size of the glacier (reserve capacity) isn't as important as the ability to buffer seasonal rainflow. I.E. As long as the seasonal rainflow feeding the Ganges and other rivers is buffered, then the total volume of ice just sitting there won't affect India, except in multi-year drought conditions. However, storing adequate "reserves" for 100 consecutive years of drought isn't necessary. Here's an article in Nature on Asian glaciers from GRACE and other sources, where they characterize a net loss of ice. http://www.nature.co...te.2010.19.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 5, 2011 Author Share Posted February 5, 2011 Here's an article in Nature on Asian glaciers from GRACE and other sources, where they characterize a net loss of ice. http://www.nature.co...te.2010.19.html Whos paper should we believe? The objective one I posted, or yours? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salbers Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 Either one, they both say there's a net loss of Himilayan glaciers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 Whos paper should we believe? The objective one I posted, or yours? Both articles say the same thing. The Himalayan glaciers are melting. You still haven't fixed your title even though you have admitted it was wrong and that you tried to edit it but did not know how. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 6, 2011 Author Share Posted February 6, 2011 Both articles say the same thing. The Himalayan glaciers are melting. You still haven't fixed your title even though you have admitted it was wrong and that you tried to edit it but did not know how. Some are melting, some are growing, others are stagnating. I cannot fix the damn thing..... as much as I want to. Ask a mod to do it if it bothers you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.