Black Soot May Be Aiding Melting In the Himalayas 336
Hugh Pickens writes "The Himalayas, home to some 10,000 glaciers, are the main source of replenishment to lakes, streams, and some of the continent's mightiest rivers, on which millions of people depend for their water supplies. Since the 1960s, the acreage covered by Himalayan glaciers has declined by more than 20 percent with a rate of warming twice the global average over the past 30 years. Now Live Science reports that tiny particles of pollution known as 'black carbon' — and not heat-trapping greenhouse gases — may be causing much of the rapid melting of glaciers in the Himalayas. 'Tibet's glaciers are retreating at an alarming rate,' says James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City. 'Black soot is probably responsible for as much as half of the glacial melt, and greenhouse gases are responsible for the rest.' The circulation of the atmosphere in the region causes much of the soot-laden air to 'pile up' against the Himalayas. The soot mixes with other dust from nearby deserts, creating a massive brown cloud visible from space that absorbs incoming solar radiation. As this layer heats up in the Himalayan foothills, it rises and enhances the seasonal northward flow of humid monsoon winds, forcing moisture and hot air up the slopes of the mountain range."
!millions (Score:3, Informative)
It is more like hundreds of millions.
Should not be a surprise (Score:4, Informative)
We have already noticed problems with soot [nytimes.com]. In fact I recall reading books about terraforming where soot was sprinkled on an ice cap, so the idea is pretty old.
Re:ZOMG! Global warming is wrong! (Score:3, Informative)
The right wingers will surely use this as "proof" that global warming is wrong.
AGW skeptics have known about Asian black soot for 2-3 years. (It's also been found in Arctic pack ice and in the Colorado Rockies.)
I'm just glad that the "mainstream" has finally "noticed" it.
Re:Prehistoric water reserves? (Score:3, Informative)
Galciers are essentially a water battery. There is very heavy seasonal precipitation high in the mountains. This precipitation becomes glacier ice, which slides downward and melts.
The sliding process and melting however happens perennial, and thus turns high seasonal percipitation into a dependable perennial water source. Without glaciers, all the water simply comes gushing downhill - which can be very damaging on its own, and leaves the people without a dependable water source for the rest of the year.
There are two possibilities how a glacier can "die" - either the yearly precipitation dries up (therefore, melted ice is not replenished), or the temperature gets warmer and the "melting zone" goes up the mountain, ultimately leaving no glacier. We observe the latter across the globe.
Re:Some nice backpedaling there, bud (Score:3, Informative)
So when we see scientists trying to come up with excuses for why ice packs are melting without a huge increase in global temperatures, we need to question both their motives and their data.
A few simple points that are (surprisingly, still) worth mentioning. Scientists are not coming up with "excuses" for the melting of ice packs. They are observing it and developing explanations based on models. You may personally believe that the melting of ice packs would require "huge" (conveniently unquantified) temperature increases to happen, but I'm willing to bet you personal beliefs in this matter are not based on rigorous observation and mechanistic explanations of the system. The questioning of the data used by scientists to come up with the said explanations has to be addressed in an individual basis. I'm certainly supportive that not only data from global warming research, but all publicly funded research be openly available, but it is utterly naive to think that the all conclusions presented in published peer-reviewed articles would not be supported if these data were available (and it's deceptive, at the least, to question their conclusions without even knowing their contents). The questioning of the motives of the scientific community to fabricate the conclusion of ice packs melting due to anthropogenic climate change is, in my opinion, one of the weakest arguments of denialists. Conspiracy theories abound, but no one seems to find the underlying motives that lead this entire scientific community to take on the daunting task of misleading the world's population, while doing it under the public's scrutiny and very aptly covering its tracks. Staging the moon-landing is child's play compared to this.
Yes, we can see oceanic water levels rising *in certain localized areas*, but we aren't seeing the massive deluge that was predicted.
Hopefully we can finally put to bed the reality of global warming and focus on the real problem of global pollution.
How on Earth the oceanic water levels will rise *in certain localized areas* is beyond me. Unless your theory accounts for a substantial increase in oceanic water viscosity as well, although that might explain why the current rises in ocean levels have failed to meet your expectations. And, according to recent EPA definitions, the problem of global warming caused by CO2 emissions *is* "the real problem of global pollution".
Incidentally, everyone is naturally entitled to their opinions, but I prefer anthropogenic global warming denialism when it's devoid of blatant logical inconsistencies.
Re:ZOMG! Global warming is wrong! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Some nice backpedaling there, bud (Score:5, Informative)
Calling it melting is prejudicial (because it implies melting due to warming), it's termed glacial retreat and in most cases, there are valid reasons for this not associated with "Global Warming". For instance, the glaciers on Kilimanjaro are retreating because the rain forest at the bottom was destroyed which drastically reduced the amount of precipitation on the mountain's slopes. Less precipitation == less liquid to freeze, so the water lost to the summer temperatures was simply not replaced.
Interestingly, the cost of replacing the stoves causing the Himalayan pollution (it is believed that most of the soot is not from large scale generation, but from household stoves - individually they're not that significant, but there's a hell of a lot of people in that part of the world) has been estimated at $15 billion. This seems like a good use of resources to me, rather than fantasy schemes like cap and trade.
Re:Some nice backpedaling there, bud (Score:3, Informative)
Hear, hear!
The sea level rises mentioned in the IPCC reports are measured in centimeters over decades in the worst case scenarios, which isn't exactly the end of the world.
Measurements (i.e. the instrumental record) of sea levels is 1.1mm per year steady for the last 20 years. The real dangers of melting glaciers is the effect of (probably localised) changes in the salinity of the water damaging ecosystems.
For myself, bollocks to "doom!" and "end of the world" predictions associated with climate change. The real issue with carbon dioxide production is the acidification of the oceans, and the increase in plankton and algae associated with the increase in CO2. Fish are an important part of the diet for many people all over the world, and we've done well from the ocean's bounty over the years.
Re:Should not be a surprise (Score:1, Informative)
Score:4, Insightful
I... I don't know what to say.
Outright denial of all scientific evidence? Declaring that fixing the problem will require us to spend 2.5 times the GDP? Declaring that fixing the problem will require us to give up control of our lives? This is insightful? There are times I'm ashamed to call myself human.
In any case, while I'm inclined to agree with climate researchers who are experts in their field and have formulated their models on the scientific method, which is itself based on rational thought, I'm willing to hear out opposing arguments as that it also rational. Do you have a rational argument that fixing the problem will require $40 trillion per year and require us to sacrifice our liberty? I'm sure this is simply hyperbole so what I'm really asking for is evidence of a unified plan being presented by the people warning us about global warming that will 1) consume an enormous percentage of the nation's resources, 2) significantly reduce personal freedoms and 3) will empower a group of people who will be collecting these resources and reducing these liberties for their own benefit (actually, I'll settle for the name this group of people).
Re:ZOMG! Global warming is wrong! (Score:3, Informative)
If this was presented as a pollution problem, you could get the right-wingers on board. After all, Edmund Muskie sponsored the Clean Water Act in 1971, and despite Nixon's veto it was overrriden and became law. Republican members pretty much have supported it. When the EPA gets back to pollution control, they will find many right-wingers willing to support these efforts.
Sadly, they will also find many right- and left-wingers unwilling to pretend that any pollution controls within the U.S. will solve any significant global pollution problems. The developing countries will resist joining in, as it will raise costs and diminish growth, and China is quite literally a black hole of pollution with no intention of limiting growth or raising costs to even halt the increases, much less reduce.
In a way, we are entering a perfect storm of globalization, massive industrial development, fossil fuels as a
cheap path to industrial prosperity, and the attendant rise in global pollution and genuine climate impact. CO2 is not so much of a problem as particulates, but it is much easier to sell punishing the developed countries rather than set new standards and prevent the avalance of underdeveloped countries spewing so much more. China will eclipse the US in this impact, if they haven't already, and we have no prospects of limiting their spew. Africa is next, and more is the pity, since Africa could be a miraculous eco-economy if they could bear to live a little below their industial potential and stop killing one another so wantonly. South American is well on its way to completely developing their lands, with the requisite loss of habitat and forest. We may one day realize that the deforestation of the Amazon did more to ruin Earth than every car and coal power plant ever built. And there are other forests under attack.
If were only so simple, but this global problem is not being addressed globally yet. And I see little hope for it to be so any time soon. Many developing countries want to 'get theirs', and get it now, figuring they can get the developed countries to either give up theirs, or fix it in technology. We might be able to, but probably not, unless it is a truly global solution. And there is no forum to discuss this honestly, so it will continue.
Re:Should not be a surprise (Score:5, Informative)
In any case, while I'm inclined to agree with climate researchers who are experts in their field and have formulated their models on the scientific method, which is itself based on rational thought...
First, "scientific method" involves welcoming peer review of your work. As we now know, many of the leading climatologists working in AGW research have refused to publish their work in scientific journals that post criticism of their work.
Would you listen to Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences? He said:
"Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy – almost throughout the last century – growth in its intensity...Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated...Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."
How about Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences:
"We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But – and I cannot stress this enough – we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future... [T]here has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas – albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed."
Oh, and $40 trillion was a global figure from HERE: [reuters.com]
This finding was based on a groundbreaking research paper by renowned climate economist Professor Richard Tol, who showed that a high, global CO2 tax starting at 68 dollars could reduce world GDP by a staggering 12.9 percent in 2100—the equivalent of 40 trillion dollars a year – costing many times the expected damage of global warming.
Or do you consider the work of 5 Nobel laureates to be credible?
Re:Some nice backpedaling there, bud (Score:3, Informative)
The primary dangers in sea-level rise are "tipping points" (a term I, for some reason, dislike) -- sharp nonlinear transitions. The simple progression of sea level rise gives you very little sea level rise, but if you cross a threshold where a lot of land-bound ice melts over a period of time, you can suddenly (in the climatological/geological sense of "suddenly") get substantial ocean rise.
The IPCC reports correctly point out that there are quite a few potentially negative tipping points (and a few positive ones) that we may be approaching, but predicting what exactly will happen with them is extremely difficult. The major risk they present is in their unpredictability. Even the IPCC "worst-case" scenarios are not actually worse-case, because they (rightly) do not include these unpredictable transitions.
Re:More liberal propaganda (Score:3, Informative)
You mean like this [google.com]?
Oh, and as for soot: while it may be news here, it was widely covered by the IPCC. See AR4 WG1 Ch. 2 Sec 2.5.4, "Radiative Forcing by Anthropogenic Surface Albedo Change: Black Carbon in Snow and Ice". They cite five different papers. Evidence for forcing is classified as "B" (moderate), consensus "3", (insufficient consensus), level of scientific understanding is "Low". In the next IPCC report, given the sizable number of papers that have come out since that, that'll probably be bumped up to "A", '2", "Moderate", and the net forcing contribution will probably be bumped up to about 0.5 W/m^2 (out of ~2.6 net and ~1.7 for CO2).
Re:Should not be a surprise (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, I believe we've had this discussion before. If not with you, I've had with someone else. Now, who is National Science Foundation? Or to be more accurate, who makes up the National Science Board? The list can be found HERE [nsf.gov]. Surely these guys are not biased. Surely their daytime jobs would not be affected by AGW research, right? Let's look at a member, shall we?
Dan E. Arvizu became the eighth Director of the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) on January 15, 2005. NREL, located in Golden, Colorado, is the Department of Energy's primary laboratory for energy efficiency and renewable energy research and development. NREL is operated for DOE by Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC (Alliance). He is President of Alliance and also is an Executive Vice President with the Midwest Research Institute, headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri.
Hmmm... Director of the US Dept of Energy's Renewable Energy Laboratory. Gee, I wonder what would happen to his funding if we found out that AGW is not really a problem. I wonder what his views are concerning giving grants to those that seek to disprove the current "consensus" of AGW.
How about this guy?
G. Wayne Clough has been a member of the faculty at Duke University, Stanford University, Virginia Tech, and the University of Washington. At Virginia Tech, he served as Head of the Department of Civil Engineering and as Dean of the College of Engineering. In 1993, he was appointed Provost and Vice President of Academic Affairs at the University of Washington, and in 1994 he became Georgia Tech's tenth president. In 2008 he was appointed the 12th Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution.
Hmmmm. The Smithsonian Institute? What do they have to do with Global Warming? Surely, they can be a non-biased source, right? Let's see [usgcrp.gov].
Within the Smithsonian Institution, global change research is conducted at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, the National Air and Space Museum, the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, the National Museum of Natural History, the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, and the National Zoological Park. Research is organized around themes of atmospheric processes, ecosystem dynamics, observing natural and anthropogenic environmental change on daily to decadal time scales, and defining longer term climate proxies present in the historical artifacts and records of the museums as well as in the geologic record at field sites. The Smithsonian Institution program strives to improve knowledge of the natural processes involved in global climate change, to provide a long-term repository of climate-relevant research materials for present and future studies, and to bring this knowledge to various audiences, ranging from scholarly to the lay public. The unique contribution of the Smithsonian Institution is a long-term perspective; for example, undertaking investigations that may require extended study before producing useful results and conducting observations on sufficiently long (e.g., decadal) time scales to resolve human-caused modification of natural variability.
Well, crap. How about a meteorologist. Surely one can be non-biased. How about this guy. Surely, he has no vested interest in government money going to AGW research:
He also directs the Sasaki Institute, which is a non-profit organization at the University of Oklahoma that fosters the development and application of knowledge, policy, and advanced technology for the mutual benefit of the government, academic and private sectors.
Well, there you have it. I'm not saying that all the members are biased, but here are three that deal with AGW. Many of the others are professors of health, philosophy, communications and other none climate disciplines.
So, yeah, it appears that the NSB, the part of the NSF that directs funding, is quite biased toward research that supports AGW and have jobs that are threatened by research that may disprove AGW.