58 percent of glaciers examined in the westerly Karakoram range of the Himalayas were stable or advancing
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Ellen Flees To The UK
- HUD Climate Advisor
- Causes Of Increased Storminess
- Scientist Kamala Harris
- The End Of Polar Bears
- Cats And Hamsters Cause Hurricanes
- Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- New BBC Climate Expert
- 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- “the United States has suffered a “precipitous increase” in hurricane strikes”
- Thing Of The Past Returns
- “Impossible Heatwaves”
- Billion Dollar Electric Chargers
- “Not A Mandate”
- Up Is Down
- The Clean Energy Boom
- Climate Change In Spain
- The Clock Is Ticking
- “hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
Recent Comments
- Gamecock on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Richard E Fritz on The End Of Polar Bears
- Richard E Fritz on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Richard E Fritz on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Richard E Fritz on Causes Of Increased Storminess
- Richard E Fritz on HUD Climate Advisor
- Richard E Fritz on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Robertvd on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Robertvd on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Bob G on Ellen Flees To The UK
I’ll have to admit….I’m a little confused.
I had read that one reason the glaciers were “really” retreating was soot from the African continent was settling onto the Himalayans.
The soot absorbed sunlight and trapped heat, ergo, melting.
Is a dust and rock layer any different? I mean, there maybe some absorbtion difference between carbon soot and dust/rocks, however, that much?
It actually insulates? “Some” glaciers?
If the layer of debris is deep and continuous enough then it insulates. Different from thin dark dust layers which simply absorb sunlight and radiate. The glacier still needs to have a positive accumulation zone above the debris fields to maintain size or grow.
Do we know if there is more dust than before and if so how it got there?
It sounds to me as if they are clutching at straws. Anything to avoid having to admit maybe the area is not warming after all.
It’s obvious: the disappearing Arctic ice and the ice-free Hudson are causing those glaciers to advance.
AGW causes glaciers to retreat, advance, stay still, roll over, play dead.. the same applies to floods, drought, heatwaves, heavy snow, cold snaps etc etc.
Steve,
An oversight surely but you forgot to put in the very next sentence.
“Elsewhere in the Himalayas “more than 65 percent of the monsoon-influenced glaciers … are retreating,” they wrote in the journal Nature Geoscience of the satellite study from 2000 to 2008. Some glaciers that were stable in length were covered by a thick layer of rocky debris… Overall in the Himalayas, the glaciers are retreating,” Dirk Scherler, the lead author at the University of Potsdam in Germany, told Reuters.
I get it now. All the Himalayan glaciers are going to be gone, even though in some regions of the Himalayas most of them are growing. Brilliant logic Tony
Seve,
Logic has nothing to do with it. You posted from an article and somehow forgot to include the next sentence after what you posted, therefore giving some the erroneous impression that himalayan glaciers are expanding or stable.
No need to apologize, I am sure it was an honest omission.
And once again you are assuming something that has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote. But that is so common now, I pretty much assume you will do that.
“And once again you are assuming something that has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote.”
Lol, Tony, he wasn’t referring to what you wrote, he was referring to what was written by the IPCC……….you probably missed the headline……
if he wasn’t referring to what I wrote he should not have put my name at the end.
and if he WAS referring to the IPCC they have retracted that prediction, so his post is pointless.
If some are advancing and continue to do so, they’re not going to all disappear. That’s the simple logic, and Steve’s point.
The additional sentence you quote is irrelevant to that fact.
Tony,
1) Glaciers have generally been retreating since ~1850
2) Some glaciers are advancing
3) See below:
Are all Himalayan glaciers melting?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8387737.stm
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/326/5955/924
Himalayan glaciers ‘melting’ due as much to soot and dust as CO2
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/himalayan-soot.html
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/himalayan-warming.html
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/9/26593/2009/acpd-9-26593-2009.html
Tony,
The headline itself says “Some Himalayan Glaciers Advance”.
This is the whole essence of that article. You can hardly criticise Steve for repeating it.
Paul,
I didn’t write that they were all going to disappear.
I didn’t criticize Steve for repeating anything.
I just helped him out by including what he omitted.
Yeah, here it is:
http://www.climateactionprogramme.org/news/man-made_cloud_of_soot_melting_himalayan_glaciers/
Now, the article keeps mentioning that this involves climate change…..but, it’s really pollution. Okay, soot is a solid form of CO2, right? So, it, in itself, isn’t causing climate change.
This linked article details the various regions of the Himalayan mountain range with various decadal, man made soot, not CO2 forcing, causitive reason for the melting.
This study covers most of all the regions. It’s a more expansive study.
Tony, you need to really read this propaganda…
58% of glaciers “in one area” are advancing, not all glaciers just the ones in that area
65% of the “monsoon-influenced glaciers” are retreating, not all glaciers just the ones influenced by monsoons, which is a very small number
No where do they give real numbers
Latitude,
Now if Steve had written what you just wrote, I would have had no reason to comment at all, now would I?
Tony,
I think we’ve been pretty resonable with each other, and I get what you’re tring to do, but the headline and sub-head clearly state that it’s a portion of the glaciers that are advancing.
Yes, Steve excluded the parts about the glaciers that are retreating, but there is no way a resonable person could get the “erroneous impression that himalayan glaciers are expanding or stable.” (to quote you) with the text “58 percent of glaciers examined …, “Some Himalayan…” & “…despite an overall retreat…” being displayed in bold/large typfaces.
Your post is disingenious at best
Robb,
I agree that we have been reasonable, and I don’t think I am being disingenuous. I was just pointing out that Steve cut off the article right before the point where it describes glaciers retreating. In rereading I see that the sub headline DOES say overall retreat, so the post is not ignoring that and I did not acknowledge that in my rush to judgement!
What prompted my initial comment was his headline that says “IPCC :Even more incompetent than we thought”. He nowhere quotes any IPCC article or comment that says “All glaciers in the Himalayas are retreating” so I don’t see how this article supports that headline.
Resonable enough…But I think you’ve been here long enough to understand that STeve is just countering the “media bias” with posts like this. Yes, we here all know thw IPPC retracted the “Himalayan glaciers gone by 2035” statement, but I do remember hearing (and seeing) a lot about the original statement in the press. Regarding the retraction, not so much.
The “average climate Joe” still thinks the Himalayan glaciers are disappearing at an alarming rate.
Robb,
I am not sure what the average joe thinks. I have been reading over and over again about the retraction, so I am clearly not a good model.
And Yes, the vast majority of people have no clue about what is going on or what is understood regarding climate change. Most people I know that believe in ACC have a cartoon knowledge that is pretty worthless, which is why I try to let people know about the actual science.
A big reason I monitor this site is because I do get info that I might not from other sources. But I do not support countering a media bias by only posting information that supports one conclusion
Tony, that’s why guys like you are here.
Tony,
I’ve never seen you protest once to the “ information that supports one conclusion” over at places like Real Climate or Grist. Maybe I missed it and you could point me to a post where you corrected them for only presenting one side of the science. I know every time I’ve tried, I never even made it through moderation.
So why is it that I’ve not seen your critical comments in Pro AGW places?
lol, Robb, you and several thousands posts are stuck in moderation. Even if Tony would write a critical post, you and I would never see it.
Robb,
You have never seen a critical post at realclimate because I don’t know that I have ever posted there. I just found out about Grist from this site, so have had no opportunity to comment there.
in looking at realclimate there I AM seeing critical comments, and I notice that they say they have started a specific section for comments they deem worthless, as well as those they consider off topic. Considering they apparently get hundreds of comments that they DO post, I am not surprised.
I also have seen them acknowledge science that does indicate influences on Climate change that would either lead to smaller climate sensitivity or evidence of warming. Two recent ones are Dessler post on Clouds, and Schmidt and Mann’s discussion of McShane and Wyner.
Some right, some wrong, and some playing in the wrong ballpark. For starters look up “Climatic flip-flop”. It’s been a “hot” topic for 12-15 years.
Global warming doesn’t refer to a local region. If it’s 3 degrees warmer in the tropics there’s a lot more evaporation, i.e. more global humidity. That means that where weather patterns and altitude are propitious, snow pack may accumulate (glaciers); but where they aren’t, existing glaciers may melt. There may be a glacier advancing in one valley or slope and one retreating in the next Or whole continental patterns shift.
If cold fresh water from the melting arctic prevents the Gulf Stream from reaching Northern Europe, potentially, you could get another ice-age.
Beware of simple answers and definitive projections. The situation is in flux and flow, and all bets are on the table.
The whole problem is that no one really knows what either increasing or decreasing CO2 will do in the long run. There are always going to be unanticipated and unintended consequences. For all we know, increasing CO2 might be preventing another Ice Age.
Tony Duncan says:
January 24, 2011 at 6:38 am
you of course voiced your concern about the outright falsehood written into the AR4 about Himalayan glaciers as soon as it was published. Sent a letter directly to pachauri? Mind posting it here? it seems that one made a point about parts of the Himalayas, and the other just made a complete falsehood. And you pick the nits.
Phil,
being as i did not read the report from cover to cover, i am guilty of not doing anything about it. However as soon as I DID read about it, I immediately thought that it was crazy, as did every climate scientist that I saw who commented on it.
I didn’t PICK anything. Steve did and I pointed out that he ignored the very next sentence form what he posted. But as Robb pointed out, what he did post did give the general conclusion that Himalayan glaciers are generally retreating, so I acknowledge being overly critical . Although as I pointed out, his headline had no basis in fact.
LOL,
still the same Tony Duncan.
The famous irrelevant fact nitpicker.
Tony, you are simply wrong. If YOU GOT the wrong impression, that is your fault, not that of the author. He stated clearly what was retreating, and did not infer farther. You appear to have done so, which is your perogative. but do not blame him for your lack of reading comprehension.
Mis-reading a fact does not invalidate the fact.
Phil,
You lost me. What exactly are you referring to. The author of the article, or Steve?
What fact am I misreading?
Alas, I am sorry for your lack of comprehension in following threads. My statement is a response to yours, and needs no further clarification to those fluent in the English Language.
Phil,
I must bow to your superiority and my stupidity. I have reread this thread and am still at a loss. I thought I responded clearly to your comment. Although you attributing some inference on my part is consistent with people here inventing beliefs for me.
All I said in my original comment was that Steve had cut off the article right before it discussed decreasing glaciers. I acknowledged that I had mischaracterized Steve’s post, and I apologize for that. It was unfair of me to do so.
I still see no support for the contention on his headline, But there are plenty of those, so I am still waiting for some documentation of something the IPCC has published or any scientists that validates that headline.
All the links I see posted here that are from scientists seem quite reasonable and are an improvement in the science. Exactly what one would expect when money is being given to research a complicated question.
Your sarcasm is misdirected, as is your false praise. I offered no evidence of superiority or stupidity. You responded clearly in saying
(continued – sorry) that I lost you. Given that my comments were not meant to be oblique or misdirecting, I have no other way of explaining it to you other than to offer my condolences at not being able to follow the thesis, question, answer format of a thread.
I am attributing nothing to you other than your written word, and not commenting on your links or their relevance in this matter. Again, I made a statement referring to your original contention, and that is where you seem to have lost the thread (although from your posting to mine a good deal of time elapsed).