Himalayan glaciers not melting

[30ashopper]

"The sky is falling!!"

"um no, it's not."

Some where in the middle there is the truth.

 

[AndrewG]

"The sky is falling!!"

"um no, it's not."

Some where in the middle there is the truth.

Agree.

 

[poppy]

I am reading this a different way. Because some glaciers have an insulating layer of debris and others do not a "one size fits all approach" to measuring the retreat will not be correct. Climate and topography both must be calculated to arrive at an accurate rate of retreat. The author omits the 65% retreat figure and provides no link to the report so I have to question the narrative. Oh, and once again the thread title is misleading.

From-http://www.nature.com/ngeo/index.html

Controversy about the current state and future evolution of Himalayan glaciers has been stirred up by erroneous statements in the fourth report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change1, 2. Variable retreat rates3, 4, 5, 6 and a paucity of glacial mass-balance data7, 8 make it difficult to develop a coherent picture of regional climate-change impacts in the region. Here, we report remotely-sensed frontal changes and surface velocities from glaciers in the greater Himalaya between 2000 and 2008 that provide evidence for strong spatial variations in glacier behaviour which are linked to topography and climate. More than 65% of the monsoon-influenced glaciers that we observed are retreating, but heavily debris-covered glaciers with stagnant low-gradient terminus regions typically have stable fronts. Debris-covered glaciers are common in the rugged central Himalaya, but they are almost absent in subdued landscapes on the Tibetan Plateau, where retreat rates are higher. In contrast, more than 50% of observed glaciers in the westerlies-influenced Karakoram region in the northwestern Himalaya are advancing or stable. 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.

 

[scooterbug44]

Please note that the posted article did not say that global warming was false - just that debris was more of a deciding factor in Himalayan glacial melt than climate change.

Approximately 50% are stable or advancing.

That still leaves about half the glaciers that are shrinking.

 

[poppy]

Actually the 50% referenced was just one region, the Karakoram region in the northwestern Himalaya.

 

[30ashopper]

Please note that the posted article did not say that global warming was false - just that debris was more of a deciding factor in Himalayan glacial melt than climate change.

Approximately 50% are stable or advancing.

That still leaves about half the glaciers that are shrinking.

Please note that climate scientist working for the U.N. proclaimed these glaciers were melting so fast they'd be gone by 2035. Please also note they have since been proven wrong.

 

[poppy]

Please note that climate scientist working for the U.N. proclaimed these glaciers were melting so fast they'd be gone by 2035. Please also note they have since been proven wrong.

Please note you are beating the dead horse, they withdrew the claim and apologized. Deny all you want, the fact remains glaciers are melting and temperatures are higher. I have no idea if it is climate change or natural cycle but I am eager for the answer to be found. Why all the fear that humans may be a contributing factor?

 

[30ashopper]

Please note you are beating the dead horse, they withdrew the claim and apologized. Deny all you want, the fact remains glaciers are melting and temperatures are higher. I have no idea if it is climate change or natural cycle but I am eager for the answer to be found. Why all the fear that humans may be a contributing factor?

I don't know about glaciers melting, but the tempurature rise arguement is heavily disputed due to data issues. For example, over the last decade scientist have flipped from thinking satellite data indicated there was no rise, to a major rise, to a more modest rise. Satellite data also doesn't match well with ground based measurments, which are highly suspect for a number of reasons. So I don't think it's smart to make an absolute claim that "temperatures are rising", since we really don't know for sure.

 

[Lake View Too]

I don't know about glaciers melting, but the tempurature rise arguement is heavily disputed due to data issues. For example, over the last decade scientist have flipped from thinking satellite data indicated there was no rise, to a major rise, to a more modest rise. Satellite data also doesn't match well with ground based measurments, which are highly suspect for a number of reasons. So I don't think it's smart to make an absolute claim that "temperatures are rising", since we really don't know for sure.

You're joking, aren't you? They have been analyzing data derived from core samples of the antartic ice field reaching back 10,000 years, and there is simply no debate on the fact that carbon dioxide levels have skyrocketed in the last 200 years, along with overall warming. There is no dispute, except in your limited mind.

 

[30ashopper]

You're joking, aren't you? They have been analyzing data derived from core samples of the antartic ice field reaching back 10,000 years, and there is simply no debate on the fact that carbon dioxide levels have skyrocketed in the last 200 years, along with overall warming. There is no dispute, except in your limited mind.

:roll: I find you suggesting I need to expand my limited mind rather ironic considering a simple google search shows your "undisputed claim" is in fact, heavily disputed. Take your own advice, do some research.