Himalayan Glaciers Not Melting because of Climate Change

28 Jan 2011 07:38 #11 by Martin Ent Inc
well I was able to watch the rest of the program.
The scientists there sort of refused the global warming term, but did say the earth was going through "climate" change.
And yes some glaciers have retreated/melted as much as a billions of gallons and cause sea level rise while others have sustained or actually grown.
A couple of them compare this to past climatic changes that they reearched from other studies or history as they have learned.
All in all they semi concluded that the earth is going through a change, they did not confer on if it is man made, and the speicies that are effected will probably evolve to accept these new changes.
Very interesting.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

28 Jan 2011 08:19 #12 by Rockdoc

Martin Ent Inc wrote: well I was able to watch the rest of the program.
The scientists there sort of refused the global warming term, but did say the earth was going through "climate" change.
And yes some glaciers have retreated/melted as much as a billions of gallons and cause sea level rise while others have sustained or actually grown.
A couple of them compare this to past climatic changes that they reearched from other studies or history as they have learned.
All in all they semi concluded that the earth is going through a change, they did not confer on if it is man made, and the speicies that are effected will probably evolve to accept these new changes.
Very interesting.


What I find interesting is the refusal for some scientists to accept the obvious. The whole sea level budget is related to changes in ice volume on the short term (1000s of years scale). On the long term, another factor comes into play, sea floor spreading rate (tens of millions of years). This is because hot ocean floor isostatically sits higher than cool ocean floor and thus displaces ocean water onto land. As mentioned before, it is not meaningful to look at individual glaciers to draw conclusions.

I've not watched the video you refer to, but if the scientists are geologists, likely they are loath to feed the current man-made CO2 hysteria. While, I certainly remain unconvinced that CO2 is the driving force, the available data has me convinced that sea level is rising over the long term and that it must be related to shrinking ice fields and glaciers on a global, not individual scale.

We have already seen that life adapts rather quickly to environmental changes. One of the more recent examples comes from bed bugs that are now more than 100 times more resistant to poisons used to eliminate this pest 50 years ago. That is fast evolution. Generally speaking, the fossil record shows an increased species diversity during greenhouse periods in the geologic past. This is so because there is an increase in shallow water areas that are conducive to life within the photic zone and thus can support larger and more diverse populations.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

28 Jan 2011 08:30 #13 by Martin Ent Inc
Some were climatologist, a glacial climatologist, a geologist, and a couple of Dr's that I can't recall their expertise.
One was definately on the global warming trend and CO2 emmisions, but the others were hesitant to say it was a man made problem.
Their theory was that earth has expereinced this in the past when man was not a factor.

However with the human population and the products we use there would have to be some sort of impact.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

28 Jan 2011 08:54 #14 by FredHayek
RDF,
Great points about animals evolving to deal with this. Global warming need not be a catastrophe, I think it will be more like an adjustment, we will see some animals migrating north and up in elevation expanding their range and others either adapting to the changes or declining. Too many scientists think this will be doom and gloom while I think it will be interesting to see the changes.

Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

28 Jan 2011 09:05 #15 by Martin Ent Inc
Yup, on one side we may see the demise of the polar bear, but on the other we may get a Hybrid in return. Already Grizzlies have mated with a polar bear creating a hybrid, one that was shot during a hunt a few years back.
These scientist in the program were able to watch and film interaction with the 2 species, and stated they are closely related so we may see the new species #'s emerge in the near future.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

28 Jan 2011 09:33 #16 by Rockdoc

Martin Ent Inc wrote: However with the human population and the products we use there would have to be some sort of impact.



I do believe this is one of the driving concepts and arguments behind the man-made global warming trends. There is a huge difference between concept and reality. Mostly what we have is a science looking at Global warming, but not knowing all the parameters that govern it. Hence, it is easy to form working hypotheses to explain the problem. All it takes is for a few things to fall in line with trends and the working hypothesis becomes real in some minds, especially the political scene. We are a long ways from understanding global climate changes. At least, that is my position. I look at evidence for climate change all the time as part of my work over the past 30+ years. I've done so from a paleontologic and sedimentologic perspective that covers the past 500 million years. What emerges from this is 1) there have been many global changes in climate long before man made any impression. 2) life not only evolves but often flourishes in response to the changes. 3) Some global climatic changes lasted more than 10s of millions of years (ie. Cretaceous = Greenhouse world when average global temperatures were a number of degrees higher than they are today and a time when there were no glaciers anywhere).

I'm still of the opinion that mankind is exceedingly egotistical, mainly they think that the world revolves around them lol

Let me add parenthetically, that all living populations create an impact on the world around them. Man is just one of the many animals that has done so. During the Ordovician (500 million years ago), it was the explosive evolution of brachiopods in the marine realm that profoundly affected evolving life in the oceans. More recently (Jurassic) dinosaurs did the same thing. Since the dinosaurs, mammals in general have dominated organic evolution. Lesson learned is that there is always one group or another that has a major impact. Lest you think that we are special, think again, because brachiopods have calcareous shells and thus their enormous numbers tied up huge amounts of CO2, doing the opposite of what we see man doing now. Still the Ordovician was mostly a greenhouse world during their hay day, not the cold icehouse world that one might predict from a removal of CO2 from the atmosphere.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

30 Jan 2011 22:07 #17 by ScienceChic
So in the story that Grady cited from The Telegraph, the author mentions twice that half the glaciers in the Karakoram region are stable or advancing and makes a 3rd questionable conclusion ("The new study by scientists at the Universities of California and Potsdam has found that half of the glaciers in the Karakoram range, in the northwestern Himlaya, are in fact advancing and that global warming is not the deciding factor in whether a glacier survives or melts." , "In contrast, more than 50 per cent of observed glaciers in the Karakoram region in the northwestern Himalaya are advancing or stable." and "Their report, published in the journal Nature Geoscience, found the key factor affecting their advance or retreat is the amount of debris – rocks and mud – strewn on their surface, not the general nature of climate change."), yet the author completely ignored these two facts stated right in the Abstract: More than 65% of the monsoon-influenced glaciers that we observed are retreating...Our study shows that there is no uniform response of Himalayan glaciers to climate change and highlights the importance of debris cover for understanding glacier retreat, an effect that has so far been neglected in predictions of future water availability9, 10 or global sea level11. Obviously, the study is not only claiming that the Himalayan glaciers are growing, nor that debris cover is a stronger factor than global warming, just that it needs to be studied more so it can accurately be factored in. Cherry picking at its finest.

Here's the study (it's $18 for full access, unless you have a subscription to Nature Geoscience): http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop ... o1068.html
Spatially variable response of Himalayan glaciers to climate change affected by debris cover
Dirk Scherler, Bodo Bookhagen & Manfred R. Strecker
Journal name: Nature Geoscience
Published online 23 January 2011
DOI: doi:10.1038/ngeo1068


Here's a more accurate news story on this report:
http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportID=91750
CLIMATE CHANGE: Not all Himalayan glaciers are melting

JOHANNESBURG, 27 January 2011 (IRIN) - A new study shows that while some glaciers in the Karakoram region of the northwestern Himalayas, which feed the River Indus, are stable, more than 65 percent of the glaciers fed by monsoons in the central Himalayas are melting.

"Our study shows that there is no uniform response of the Himalayan glaciers to climate change," said Dirk Scherler, one of three researchers who produced the study published in the current edition of Nature Geoscience, a monthly journal.

Monsoon-influenced glaciers have been retreating in the central rugged Himalayan region. The researchers found that debris from the mountains was choking the flow of water into a number of glaciers, which was not a good sign. Scherler said there was a need to study the debris so as to understand the demise of glaciers.

A number of studies between 1999 and 2001 have backed the link between climate change and glacier melting. "The Himalayan glaciers have retreated by approximately a kilometre since the Little Ice Age [from 1350 to 1900]," said a joint study by ICIMOD and UNEP. http://www.rrcap.unep.org/reports/file/ ... Change.pdf

"Himalayan glaciers are retreating at rates ranging from 10m to 60m per year, and many small glaciers (less than 0.2sq km) have already disappeared."


On the Himalayan glaciers: http://www.scientificamerican.com/podca ... l-10-01-21
How Fast Are Himalayan Glaciers Melting?
The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change goofs in predicting total meltdown by 2035. But the roof of the world is still losing its icy coat. David Biello reports
January 21, 2010

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change famously predicted they could disappear as soon as 2035. It turns out that guesstimate was based on misquoting a researcher in a 1999 news article—not a result from any kind of peer-reviewed scientific study. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... nline-news

The incident reflects a breakdown in the IPCC process but it doesn't undercut the reality that glacier loss, particularly in what are technically tropical regions such as the Andes and Himalayas, continues to accelerate in the 21st century. Though they likely won't disappear entirely for centuries, losing the glaciers will eventually be bad news for the billions around the world who rely on meltwater to survive.



http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... -and-spin/

Himalayan glaciers: In a regional chapter on Asia in Volume 2, written by authors from the region, it was erroneously stated that 80% of Himalayan glacier area would very likely be gone by 2035. This is of course not the proper IPCC projection of future glacier decline, which is found in Volume 1 of the report. There we find a 45-page, perfectly valid chapter on glaciers, snow and ice (Chapter 4) http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-repor ... apter4.pdf , with the authors including leading glacier experts (such as our colleague Georg Kaser from Austria, who first discovered the Himalaya error in the WG2 report). There are also several pages on future glacier decline in Chapter 10 (“Global Climate Projections”) http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-repor ... pter10.pdf , where the proper projections are used e.g. to estimate future sea level rise. So the problem here is not that the IPCC’s glacier experts made an incorrect prediction. The problem is that a WG2 chapter, instead of relying on the proper IPCC projections from their WG1 colleagues, cited an unreliable outside source in one place.


"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther

The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

31 Jan 2011 07:45 #18 by FredHayek
I was reading an article about ice men being discovered in melted glaciers and it was interesting to see that glaciers increase and decrease in size but were not always related to global temperature changes.

Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

01 Feb 2011 15:23 #19 by Grady
When does weather become climate?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

05 Feb 2011 16:35 #20 by ScienceChic

Grady wrote: When does weather become climate?

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa- ... ather.html
What's the Difference Between Weather and Climate?
02.01.05

The difference between weather and climate is a measure of time. Weather is what conditions of the atmosphere are over a short period of time, and climate is how the atmosphere "behaves" over relatively long periods of time.

When we talk about climate change, we talk about changes in long-term averages of daily weather.

What Weather Means
Weather is basically the way the atmosphere is behaving, mainly with respect to its effects upon life and human activities. The difference between weather and climate is that weather consists of the short-term (minutes to months) changes in the atmosphere. Most people think of weather in terms of temperature, humidity, precipitation, cloudiness, brightness, visibility, wind, and atmospheric pressure, as in high and low pressure.

What Climate Means
In short, climate is the description of the long-term pattern of weather in a particular area.

Some scientists define climate as the average weather for a particular region and time period, usually taken over 30-years. It's really an average pattern of weather for a particular region.

When scientists talk about climate, they're looking at averages of precipitation, temperature, humidity, sunshine, wind velocity, phenomena such as fog, frost, and hail storms, and other measures of the weather that occur over a long period in a particular place.


http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/

http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/science ... s-climate/

In short, weather is a data point. Climate is a collection of data.


And global warming vs climate change
http://www.grinningplanet.com/2007/01-0 ... change.htm

Global Warming — An overall warming of the planet, based on average temperature over the entire surface.

Climate Change — Changes in regional climate characteristics, including temperature, humidity, rainfall, wind, and severe weather events.

Climate change is about much more than how warm or cool our temperatures are. Whereas "global warming" refers to increasing global temperatures, "climate change" refers to regional conditions. Climate is defined by a number of factors, including:

* Average regional temperature as well as day/night temperature patterns and seasonal temperature patterns.
* Humidity.
* Precipitation (average amounts and seasonal patterns).
* Average amount of sunshine and level of cloudiness.
* Air pressure and winds.
* Storm events (type, average number per year, and seasonal patterns).

To a great extent, this is what we think of as "weather." Indeed, weather patterns are predicted to change in response to global warming:

* some areas will become drier, some will become wetter;
* many areas will experience an increase in severe weather events like killer heat waves, hurricanes, flood-level rains, and hail storms.


"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther

The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.190 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum
sponsors
© My Mountain Town (new)
Google+