Himalayan glaciers not melting because of climate change, report finds

[Shady]

Looks like more alarmist myths have been debunked.

Himalayan glaciers are actually advancing rather than retreating, claims the first major study since a controversial UN report said they would be melted within quarter of a century.

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 discovery adds a new twist to the row over whether global warming is causing the world's highest mountain range to lose its ice cover.

It further challenges claims made in a 2007 report by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that the glaciers would be gone by 2035.

Link

Alarmists really need to start toning done their rhetoric. It's instances such as these, that when left with egg on their faces, the public discounts anything that comes out of their alarmist mouths. Which is definitely a bad thing. Because once in a while they might have something valid to say.

Alarmists seem to be their own worst enemies.

[Guest TrueMetis]

First off the article says half of the glaciers of the Karakoram range are advancing, which makes the headline itself bullshit rhetoric. So where's your condemnation of that Shady? The Karakoram range is part of the Himalayan range, so what the article should say is half of, part of, the Himalayan glaciers are advancing. Since the Karakoram is only part of the Himalayas even if every glacier there was melting it still wouldn't be close to half of the glaciers in the Himalayas.

I expect your condemnation of the articles rhetoric shortly Shady.

[Shady]

First off the article says half of the glaciers of the Karakoram range are advancing, which makes the headline itself bullshit rhetoric.

Who cares about the article, focus on the study. The peer-reviewed study. And you know what's worse than a bullshit headline? Bullshit science. The kind you and your ilk spew like grazing cattle on a daily basis.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Who cares about the article, focus on the study. The peer-reviewed study. And you know what's worse than a bullshit headline? Bullshit science. The kind you and your ilk spew like grazing cattle on a daily basis.

Christ you're dense, the study concludes that retreat rates are variable, which we know we've seen this type of thing happen with glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica. The increased moisture leads to increased amount of ice in a few places, while the vast majority of glaciers continue to melt. So what exactly does this prove? More of what we already know?

I also love how you're deflecting you posted an article, if you wanted talk about the study post the study. Actually post the study right now to prove you've actually found the thing.

[Shady]

the study concludes that retreat rates are variable

Where does the study state that?

which we know we've seen this type of thing happen with glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica.

Where does the study state that?

The increased moisture leads to increased amount of ice in a few places, while the vast majority of glaciers continue to melt.

Where does the study state that?

The answers. Nowhere. Nowhere. Nowhere.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Where does the study state that?

I knew it you didn't even bother to check out the study while at the same time telling me to look at the study. You probably don't even know the name of the damn study.

Shady you are such an incredibly dishonest scumbag it's no wonder you are treated like shit, you deserve to be.

Spatially variable response of Himalayan glaciers to climate change affected by debris cover

*

Dirk Scherler,

*

Bodo Bookhagen

*

& Manfred R. Strecker

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.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1068.html

Where does the study state that?

Where does the study state that?

The answers. Nowhere. Nowhere. Nowhere.

Other studies, but I wouldn't expect your dumb ass to even realize other studies exist.

ETA You know what to hell with this ignored.

Edited January 30, 2011 by TrueMetis

[Shady]

I knew it you didn't even bother to check out the study while at the same time telling me to look at the study. You probably don't even know the name of the damn study

You're quite wrong. And speaking of the study. Nowhere does it back your assertion about glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica. And nowhere does it back your assertion of the majority of Himalayan glaciers melting. This study debunks bullshit spread from the IPCC and you and your ilk. And you have the nerve to take ownership and vindication from it? Unbelievable.

[Sir Bandelot]

It appears that the tipping point between "retreating" and "advancing" glaciers is only a few degrees C. Other factors might that come into play, like extremely high altitude.

Maybe we should all move to the Himilayas?

Edited January 30, 2011 by Sir Bandelot

[Wild Bill]

You're quite wrong. And speaking of the study. Nowhere does it back your assertion about glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica. And nowhere does it back your assertion of the majority of Himalayan glaciers melting. This study debunks bullshit spread from the IPCC and you and your ilk. And you have the nerve to take ownership and vindication from it? Unbelievable.

You're missing the point, Shady. If glaciers are actually advancing they should be stopped and FORCED to retreat! This would make them positive contributors to the Global Warming problem!

[Keepitsimple]

What this article demonstrates is just another example of how much we have not factored into our "climate modelling" - leading to biased conclusions weighted in favour of human-caused Global Warming. With our planet going through it's current long-term warming cycle, we should expect some glacier melt - but it's important that we understand the net effect of glacier-melt in order to accurately estimate potential sea-level rise, if only to validate worst-case scenarios. Some glaciers are advancing, some are retreating - what's the net effect? Similarly, Arctic ice is going through another period of diminishment, while Antarctic ice is slowly increasing at a rate of about one percent per decade...but we never seem to get a reading on the overall net effect. It's a given that we've been losing some ice.....but the Himalayan and Arctic stories have been largely one-sided - and that's what this article drives home.

[Wild Bill]

What this article demonstrates is just another example of how much we have not factored into our "climate modelling" - leading to biased conclusions weighted in favour of human-caused Global Warming. With our planet going through it's current long-term warming cycle, we should expect some glacier melt - but it's important that we understand the net effect of glacier-melt in order to accurately estimate potential sea-level rise, if only to validate worst-case scenarios. Some glaciers are advancing, some are retreating - what's the net effect? Similarly, Arctic ice is going through another period of diminishment, while Antarctic ice is slowly increasing at a rate of about one percent per decade...but we never seem to get a reading on the overall net effect. It's a given that we've been losing some ice.....but the Himalayan and Arctic stories have been largely one-sided - and that's what this article drives home.

Hey Keeps, are you implying that some folks 'cherry pick' their data?

[Michael Hardner]

Who cares about the article, focus on the study. The peer-reviewed study. And you know what's worse than a bullshit headline? Bullshit science. The kind you and your ilk spew like grazing cattle on a daily basis.

Saying "who cares about the article" is a significant statement. What it means when you say that is:

"The media intermediaries who try to explain the science are not trustworthy."

That's a good thing to keep in mind, especially when reviewing reports that emanate from Cable TV News.

[Shady]

Saying "who cares about the article" is a significant statement. What it means when you say that is:

"The media intermediaries who try to explain the science are not trustworthy."

That's a good thing to keep in mind, especially when reviewing reports that emanate from Cable TV News.

Good point. And I actually meant to say who cares about the headline. Not necessarily the article. And I would agree with your comment about the media intermediaries. But that goes both ways. So it boils down to my original statement. Focus on the study.

[WIP]

I knew it you didn't even bother to check out the study while at the same time telling me to look at the study. You probably don't even know the name of the damn study.

I've noticed this many times as my opinions on global warming started changing a few years ago. The so called "skeptics" know that most of their intended audience isn't going to bother reading past the headline, and just go with what the "expert" on their side has to say.

[WIP]

You're quite wrong. And speaking of the study. Nowhere does it back your assertion about glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica. And nowhere does it back your assertion of the majority of Himalayan glaciers melting. This study debunks bullshit spread from the IPCC and you and your ilk. And you have the nerve to take ownership and vindication from it? Unbelievable.

Do you realize that mountain glaciers like the Himalayas are more often than not, insulated by surrounding layers of rubble and gravel etc.? This fact is not pointed out in such a short newspaper article that may have been intended to deceive the public. If most glaciers and sea ice are melting around the world, it doesn't prove much to find one in the Himalayas or New Zealand, from what I've heard, that are not melting.

[jbg]

Looks like more alarmist myths have been debunked.***************Alarmists seem to be their own worst enemies.

They can't exist without lies and fraud.

[Bonam]

The retreat and advance of glaciers varies greatly based on local conditions, and even tiny differences can have a big impact. Consider Mount Rainier, surrounded with about a dozen glaciers, some of which are advancing while others are retreating, despite all being in essentially the same place and climate. Why is the Emmons Glacier advancing while the Ingraham glacier is retreating? Moreover, these glaciers flip between retreating and advancing every few years or decades, with little seeming correlation to global temperatures.

Glaciers are systems that are in a very delicate balance of water constantly melting and being deposited, as well as the bulk flow of the ice. A thin layer of dust caused by a nearby rockfall can cause a glacier to suddenly start melting, as the dust darkens its surface causing it to absorb more sunlight. Growth of red snow algae can also have a profound impact. The shapes and formations of crevasses and ice fins from season to season can affect water flow through the glacier, slowing or accelerating melting rates.

While obviously a continued rise in average global temperatures will on the whole correlate with a decreased mass of ice on the planet's surface, studies of individual small groups of glaciers cannot at all be thought of as representative or indicative of any broader trend.

Just curious, have any of you actually been on a glacier before? Have you seen first hand what you are talking about? Not that it really matters that much with regards to quoting the results of studies, but exploring a glacier for yourself can give you a much deeper appreciation for what you are actually talking about. Personally, I have spent weeks hiking, climbing, and camping on glaciers, and those trips were awesome experiences, primarily for the company and physical activity and breathtaking scenery of course, but also for what I learned about glaciers.

Edited January 31, 2011 by Bonam

[wyly]

and advancing glaciers can mean exactly that...glaciers do move some more than others, movement does not always indicate growing larger...movement is due to gravity and heat which produces water and reduces friction between the glacier and the ground underneath...

[waldo]

clearly... the usual dumbass denier suspects have piled on this thread... emboldened by a ShadyPractices tabloid newspaper headline - any ole headline will do... hey, Shady, Simple, Wild Bill, jbg?

of course, if the usual suspects actually bothered to read the article, read the study (abstract), or follow-up with other reviews, they would realize the study speaks to nothing about diminishing the impact of AGW on glacier melt - it simply highlights a well known understanding concerning glacier melt... that glaciers are not only affected by temperature and precipitation, but also... where it exists... by debris coverage (pebbles, rocks, and debris from surrounding mountains... as distinct from soot and dust). The debris coverage (greater than 2 centimeters), provides an insulating effect, 'shielding' the glacier and preventing melting - as distinct and different from the increased albedo and melting affect of soot and dust.

And nowhere does it back your assertion of the majority of Himalayan glaciers melting. This study debunks bullshit spread from the IPCC and you and your ilk.

no - the study confirms that 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. What the study does highlight is that about 50% of the glaciers in the Karakoram region of Northwestern Himalaya are (also) melting, while 50% are mostly stagnating (or more specifically, the study found that half of the studied glaciers in the Karakoram region are stable or advancing)... because of the particular debris pattern within the Karakoram region (as caused by the glaciers surrounding towering mountains that almost continuously shed pebbles, debris, and rocks onto the glacier... as distinct from most other glaciers across the Himalayan range).

but this is nothing new... and most certainly confirms the IPCC AR4 findings. Speaking of debunking that spreading Shady(andIlk)Bullshit:

Whereas glaciers in the Asian high mountains have generally shrunk at varying rates (Su and Shi, 2002; Ren et al., 2004; Solomina et al., 2004; Dyurgerov and Meier, 2005),

several high glaciers in the central Karakoram are reported to have advanced and/or thickened at their tongues (Hewitt, 2005)

... that specific IPCC reference, Hewitt, 2005 -

The Karakoram Anomaly? Glacier Expansion and the ‘Elevation Effect,’ Karakoram Himalaya

:

speaking of further debunking that spreading Shady(andIlk)Bullshit:

Climate change is expected to exacerbate current stresses on water resources from population growth and economic and land-use

change, including urbanisation. On a regional scale, mountain snow pack, glaciers and small ice caps play a crucial role in freshwater availability. Widespread mass losses from glaciers and reductions in snow cover over recent decades are projected to accelerate throughout the 21st century, reducing water availability, hydropower potential, and changing seasonality of flows in regions supplied by

meltwater from major mountain ranges (e.g. Hindu-Kush, Himalaya, Andes), where more than one-sixth of the world population currently lives.

again, nothing new here... this ShadyPractices reference offers nothing new and, most certainly, counters nothing in either prevailing knowledge on glacier melt or relevant IPCC report findings. Also nothing new in that Simple again trots out his nonsensical summations while ignoring the repeated challenges that have been put to him in regards to past MLW glacier melt discussions; for example:

this presentation given recently at the annual AGU conference

- stated as reflecting the current state of the Himalayan glaciers

... that, confirms overall,

"total Himalayan glacier mass balance is distinctly negative?"

... that, references the so-called debris related, 'Karakoram Anomaly'

oh my... and not even from a tabloid rag!

World's glaciers continue to melt at historic rates

Glaciers across the globe are continuing to melt so fast that many will disappear by the middle of this century, the

World Glacier Monitoring Service (WGMS)

said today.

.

.

However the director of the WGMS, Professor Wilfried Haeberli, said the latest global results indicated most glaciers were continuing to melt at historically high rates.

"The melting goes on," said Haeberli. "It's less extreme than in years [immediately before] but what's really important is the trend of 10 years or so, and that shows an unbroken acceleration in melting."

Haeberli also repeated his warning that many glaciers are set to disappear in the next few decades, due to an expected continuation in the rise of global average temperatures. The most vulnerable glaciers were those in lower mountain ranges like the Alps and the Pyrenees in Europe, in Africa, parts of the Andes in South and Central America, and the Rockies in North America, said Haeberli.

"We are on the path of the highest scenario [of global warming] in reality, but if you take a medium scenario in the Alps about 70% will be gone by the middle of the century, and mountain ranges like the Pyrenees may be completely ice-free."

perhaps the usual dumbass denier suspects might like to step up and actually challenge the overall accelerated diminishing rate of glacier melt... or, as Wild Bill highlights, they can continue to 'cherry-pick' and distort their ShadyPractices tabloid newspaper headlines - hey?

[bloodyminded]

Wow.

I have concluded that Waldo is actually a patient man; this is the opposite of my earlier conclusion.

Well done.

[Michael Hardner]

perhaps the usual dumbass denier suspects might like to step up and actually challenge the overall accelerated diminishing rate of glacier melt... or, as Wild Bill highlights, they can continue to 'cherry-pick' and distort their ShadyPractices tabloid newspaper headlines - hey?

waldo - what, then, is the nature of the controversy that we sometimes hear about the Himalayan glacier melt ? Was there some kind of a normal adjustment made to some published paper or other ?

[Wild Bill]

waldo - what, then, is the nature of the controversy that we sometimes hear about the Himalayan glacier melt ? Was there some kind of a normal adjustment made to some published paper or other ?

It's called "back-pedaling", Michael!

Some folks seize evidence that supports their argument as fast as it appears and shout it to the rooftops! Apparently, being loud and snide somehow makes you more "right".

However, if they're too quick about it they find their evidence doesn't stand up. Standard Operating Procedure in such cases is to first:

Get a lot quieter!

Second: distance yourself as fast as possible from the poor evidence.

There's so much zealotry with climate science, sometimes from both sides of the argument. Hopefully, we will live long enough to let reality prove what's right and what's wrong.

Meanwhile, I prefer to avoid zealots. Like reformed smokers, they tend to be a preachy and cheerless bunch.

[Michael Hardner]

If there was an adjustment, though, that would be legitimate. I have seen lots of denier blogs that blow changes to publications out of proportion. But if there was something else... then like a gross error... then maybe this coverage is apt.

[waldo]

perhaps the usual dumbass denier suspects might like to step up and actually challenge the overall accelerated diminishing rate of glacier melt... or, as Wild Bill highlights, they can continue to 'cherry-pick' and distort their ShadyPractices tabloid newspaper headlines - hey?

waldo - what, then, is the nature of the controversy that we sometimes hear about the Himalayan glacier melt ? Was there some kind of a normal adjustment made to some published paper or other?

we've touched upon this, at length, several times in previous assorted MLW threads... as a refresher, particularly for Wild Bill's benefit:

- Michael, as you'll recall there was a relatively recent period of concentrated denier effort to undermine the IPCC; an effort that centered upon finding obscure "errors" within the sub-group WG2 report... the report that focuses on more of the social-sciences related to, "Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability" (with a regional emphasis)... a sub-report that has nothing to do with the underlying physical science. In this case, the "error" was so dramatic and significant... that it sat "undisturbed" for 3 years after the report was released; i.e., much ado about nothing. That actual "error" reflected upon a non-peer reviewed publication that quoted the speculation of an Indian scientist... the actual report verbiage read, "In 1999, a report by the Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology (WGHG) of the International Commission for Snow and Ice (ICSI) stated: “glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 is very high". That's it... that the sole basis for the so-called "Glaciergate" buzz that resounded around the denialsphere and bounced on up into the mainstream courtesy of British tabloid "journalists" at their best worst.

- for perspective on the insignificance of the "error"... it never became a major claim of the IPCC. As is the pattern for IPCC reports, all sub-group reports are worked through by coordinating lead authors with a summation intent... a key facet of this effort is one intended to ensure continuity of like/related statements across the various sub-group reports. In this particular case, the "error" went "uncorrected" and remained buried within the depths of the WG2 sub-group report. With emphasis, it never materialized within the final summary Synthesis Report, or the Technical Summary Report, or the Summary for Policymakers Report. Again, it was never a major claim made by the IPCC... it was simply an obscure sub-group report reference that wasn't caught in the review process... within the thousands of pages of IPCC reports.

- a few posts back, I purposely quoted from the IPCC Synthesis Report... the summation detail that reflects the so-called stated claims/positions of the IPCC (a reflection of the 'rolled-up' detail from the sub-group reports). This is the actual relevant statement from the IPCC AR4 as concerns glacier melt, particularly Himalayan glacier melt... it's the same statement the IPCC quoted in it's official response to the trumped up denier meltdown over this so-called "Glaciergate". Again:

Climate change is expected to exacerbate current stresses on water resources from population growth and economic and land-use change, including urbanisation. On a regional scale, mountain snow pack, glaciers and small ice caps play a crucial role in freshwater availability. Widespread mass losses from glaciers and reductions in snow cover over recent decades are projected to accelerate throughout the 21st century, reducing water availability, hydropower potential, and changing seasonality of flows in regions supplied by meltwater from major mountain ranges (e.g. Hindu-Kush, Himalaya, Andes), where more than one-sixth of the world population currently lives.

- as for Wild Bill's snide reference to "Standard Operating Procedure", we saw the SOP of all the usual MLW denier suspects clamoring over this little piece of insignificant fluff. Of course, when I challenged them all to refute the actual summary statement of the IPCC as concerns glacier melt (in particular Himalayan glacier melt), to challenge the actual IPCC WG1 sub-group report referenced peer-reviewed studies that reflect upon the physical science aspects of glacier melt (in particular Himalayan glacier melt) ,to challenge the actual post-IPCC AR4 state of peer-reviewed studies on glacier melt (in particular Himalayan glacier melt), to challenge a recent AGU presentation on the most current knowledge that reflects the (melting) state of Himalayan glacier melt, to challenge the statements of the World Glacier Monitoring Service (WGMS) in regards to glacier melt (in particular Himalayan glacier melt)... when I made all these challenges, all the usual MLW denier suspects (per the snide Wild Bill), went quiet. No takers - imagine that. All bluster - hey Wild Bill?

[WIP]

- as for Wild Bill's snide reference to "Standard Operating Procedure", we saw the SOP of all the usual MLW denier suspects clamoring over this little piece of insignificant fluff.

That is the real standard operating procedure! Every special interest group that takes aim at scientific evidence they don't like, looks for every perceived anomaly to submit as their own evidence. We can see this strategy from creationists down there at the Creation Museum in Kentucky, deniers of the dangers of 2nd hand tobacco smoke, DDT, global warming etc.. It's the world of 'the exception proves the rule.'