The Himalayas and Nearby Peaks Have Lost No Ice In Past 10 Years, Study Shows 409
DesScorp writes "A story from UK's Guardian reports on a study of ice levels from the Himalayas area, and finds that no significant melting has occurred, despite earlier predictions of losses of up to 50 billion tons of ice. 'The very unexpected result was the negligible mass loss from high mountain Asia, which is not significantly different from zero,' said Professor Jonathan Bamber, who also warns that 8 years simply isn't enough time to draw conclusions. 'It is awfully dangerous to take an eight-year record and predict even the next eight years, let alone the next century,' he said." Readers have sent in a few other stories today relating to melting (or persisting) ice around the globe; read on for more.
bonch writes "New research from the University of Colorado concludes that the polar ice caps are melting less than previously thought. Almost 230 billion tons of ice annually melt into the ocean, 30% less than past predictions. The new data comes from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment satellite, which provides more accurate estimates than previous methods." The earth being a complex thing, though, note that these observations don't mean an end to predictions of elevated sea level.
Finally, an anonymous reader writes with another ice story: "NASA's Terra satellite saw a huge crack in the Pine Island Glacier in Antarctica and it is all set to give rise to an iceberg the size of Manhattan! The huge gash in the snow is 30 kilometers (or 19 miles) long and nearly 100 meters wide, and is widening every passing minute. This is expected to create an iceberg more than 900 square kilometer in area, as compared to the 785 square kilometer area of Manhattan, Brooklyn, Staten Island and Bronx combined, said NASA."
Well, now the "refine theory" part of science (Score:4, Informative)
Just remember that 10 years ago "skeptics"(how exactly they define that term, I don't know) were pointing to how little ice was being lost from Antarctica in the preceding 5 years as indisputable evidence of a hoax.
As evidence that people believed this: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=antarctica+gaining+ice&source=newssearch&cd=1&ved=0CDMQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.csmonitor.com%2F2002%2F0118%2Fp02s01-usgn.html&ei=Yko0T6zmIYrXtgegk4mwAg&usg=AFQjCNHtA3NtryZuUSi1k3FLEueaP9NWfg [google.com]
Whoops, right?
Re:Skeptical != Scientific (Score:5, Informative)
It's 'healthy' to follow the data and not make any assumptions before you analyze it.
That's what skepticism is.
And the seas are not rising (Score:5, Informative)
In related news from last year, global sea levels dropped 6mm over 2010 [physorg.com].
Re:Maintaining a balanced position (Score:5, Informative)
For example, do you remember how polar bears drowning in the Arctic sea due to global warming were cited as a reason to classify them as an endangered species, and how they were used as a symbol of climate change in Al Gore's movie? The lead scientist was actually placed on administrative leave [humanevents.com], and several questions were raised about how the bears actually died and how the corpses were observed from 1,500 up in a helicopter rather than examined to actually determine their cause of death. Whether or not they were really drowning, there just wasn't enough data to come to the conclusion that was presented to the public with the level of certainty that was conveyed.
The Charles Monnett (polar bear scientist) investigation was likely politically motivated since nothing has come of it, but either way, the agency is on-record saying that his temporary administrative leave was unrelated to his polar bear research. He is back to work as of last August. This entire climate debate is so politically charged that a "rational "healthily skeptical" position" probably doesn't exist.
Director Bromwich:
" I can assure you that the decision had nothing to do with his scientific work, or anything relating to a five-year old journal article, as advocacy groups and the news media have incorrectly speculated. Nor is this a "witch hunt" to suppress the work of our many scientists and discourage them from speaking the truth. Quite the contrary. In this case, it was the result of new information on a separate subject brought to our attention very recently."
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/boemre-director-says-offshore-oil-agency-not-witch-hunt [alaskadispatch.com]
DId you read tha article (Score:5, Informative)
and understand why? HINT, it's not because of cooling or creating more ice.
It's because of more rain fall over land.
Isostacy (Score:5, Informative)
You might have nailed it. If you remove the mass from the top of the Himalayas in the form of water, the reduced weight will cause the mountains to rebound upward from the pressure from underneath.
Effectively, missing water mass is replaced by mineral mass, in what might be an almost perfect balance.
The term for this is isostacy, there's a wikipedia article on it.
--PM
Re:Maintaining a balanced position (Score:5, Informative)
In fairness to Dr. Monnett's reputation, if you cite the story that he was suspended in July, you should also note that the suspension was lifted several weeks later. Also in the name of fairness you should note that the reason he could not substantiate his observations to the IG's investigators (as reported in the article) is that they'd seized his papers. When those papers were returned the interview notes and other supporting evidence was found in them.
To all appearances this investigation is petering out, if it is not dead already. But let us grant that this is not necessarily the case. If so, *we don't know* the ultimate outcome. But should the investigation ultimately *exonerate* Dr. Monnett and Mr. Gleason, should their work be completely *vindicated*, the damage to their reputation is already done, and through means from which they could not possibly have defended themselves.
You cannot hold up an investigation, especially one with such political implications, as prima facie evidence of guilt. That's just commons sense. It *used* to be called "common decency". Even if the accusations that have been floated are proved true -- an event that seems increasingly unlikely -- the reckless use of the existence of an investigation to sully these men's reputations is repugnant to me. *Anybody* can manufacture an accusation. And any accusation of serious wrongdoing should be investigated. But it is that very necessity which makes the abuse of an investigation's mere *existence* for political ends an intolerable threat to individual liberty.
Re:You sure can engage in civil conversation! (Score:3, Informative)
The problem is that you spent so much time calling me names that you forgot to... do anything else.
I forgot to do everything but check your citation, find that you were full of it, and then call you out on it.
Your citation clearly and demonstrably does not say what you claim it said, not does any other for that matter because the claim was false, demonstrably so as I so easily did.
It was easy to find a citation to the contrary of your claims because you were talking when you didnt know what you were talking about.
Apparently, you think I've made some "industrial revolution claim" which is partially true.
"There is extremely solid evidence that the climate has been getting steadily warmer since the industrial revolution."
Thats 100% false, sir, Not partially true. And even if it was partially true, that would still support the observation that you can't tell the truth without lying. Why didn't you stick the the facts, sir? Why is it that you cannot stick to the facts? What about you makes it such that you cannot talk without exaggerating things to the point of telling a lie? What is it sir, about you?
Re:The 100% claim is essentially correct (Score:5, Informative)
Whoever modded this insightful is retarded. In no point in recorded history, or in the estimation of past CO2 levels, has the level of CO2 ever been 10 times the current amount.
Be careful who you call retarded. You're gonna feel really stupid when someone comes along and proves you wrong.
OOH! OOH! Let me!
HERE [wikipedia.org] ya go!
Did that not work? Try this one [geologist-1011.net]:
Present atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are not unprecedented in geological history. Throughout the Phanerozoic spanning the past 600 million years, carbon dioxide concentrations have been sporadically falling from well above 6000ppm (Berner, 2001). Carbon dioxide has risen before, only to be sequestered in its unstoppable decline to an all time low of 200ppm - in the midst of human history.
To put that in perspective, the current levels are around 339ppm. If you are not good at math, 6000 is more than 10 x 339.
Need more? Click HERE [lmgtfy.com]
Glad I could help.
Re:Seems to me (Score:3, Informative)
Seems to me this points toward something other than CO2 causing the warming.
And you would be wrong. It helps if you read the research on the subject. Also, the IPCC report has some very good layman explanations of the phenomena involved with planetary warming.
Something like, I don't know, water vapor, of which there is little in the Asian highlands, but plenty around the much lower areas where the glaciers are melting.
Actually, it is far more likely a result of GHGs in the lower troposphere preventing thermal radiation from escaping, which is already a noted result in stratospheric cooling.
Even AGW people admit that water is the REAL problem, and that CO2 is just a trigger for increases in that heat-storing gas.
Water vapor isn't a problem. It is a result of higher temperatures induced by higher concentrations of GHGs. You have your feedbacks a little backward.
But for some reason they seem to chafe at the idea of using condensers and other methods to remove the water from the air.
I'm not aware of any scientist chafing at the idea, however water vapor isn't the problem. Water vapor has a very short atmospheric lifetime. If water vapor was the only cause of temperature increases, then the system would actually self correct in short order. The temperature trend is a long term increasing trend, which could not be sustained by water vapor alone.
Come on, you think scientists who have studied advance physics, chemistry, and other disciplines would miss something so obvious? Water vapor is a feedback. Besides, we have nowhere near the technology to scrub the amount of water vapor out of the air that would be necessary to lower atmospheric temperatures. You're talking about battling the sun AND the heat retention of the atmosphere when it comes to water evaporation.
And not to worry, trying to sequester CO2 is just as stupid and futile.
Install reflux condensers (which are super cheap) on factories and automobiles and you reduce the humidity by as much as a few percent, which should easily negate the last century of warming. The best part is that it is effective instantly--no need to wait for three hundred years for the CO2 to come out on its own.
The amount of water vapor produced by cars and factories doesn't even register in the Earth's water cycle. The increased water vapor from higher temperatures (approximately 4%) is several orders of magnitudes higher. You'd be more effective scrubbing CO2, which by ppm, is a smaller and more manageable problem (though still intractable without world cooperation).
Not really (Score:3, Informative)
This is the typical non-skeptic attitude, which you find nearly 1 to 1 in holocaust denial (not historian , did not study or do not accept actual evidence of holocaust, point at alternative explanation which make no sense and have been oft debunked, whine that there is a conspiracy to not publish their theory that holocaust did not happen. Remind you of some attitude ?). This is why they are called climate change denier : not because they are skeptic or whatnot , but much more because they use the same (wrong) process that holocaust denier use. Sure they dislike the word, but frankly, it is earned.
Skepticism as a process is totaly different, and a skeptic for example would keep a mind open for a possible falsification and error on previous data, but would not deny the mound of data we have by now.
So, yeah, climate change denier is spot on those people are not at all "skeptic" and don't apply skepticism as a process.
Re:The 100% claim is essentially correct (Score:4, Informative)
Your argument is identical to the "we don't know how it was done. so God done it" argument of the creationist crowd
Actually his argument is identical to every scientific argument ever proposed: "Here is a theory that explains the evidence, if you've got something better spit it out". The God of the Gaps argument is "we can't explain this scientifically right now, so it must be god magic". Real scientists understand that theories may not be perfect, but you use the ones that do the best job of explaining the observations.
changes that we know have very serious and negative consequences.
Actually, the changes will have minor negative consequences. The best economic predictions is that starting the changes now, would save at least trillions of dollars over the next century. Of course, if you're old and hate people, like say Rupert Murdoch, you just might be interested in putting it off as long as you can to screw over all the people you really hate, which is everyone.
We don't need to imagine what will happen if the green nuts get their will and we start putting food into our gas tanks.
Interestingly enough, bio-fuel can actually work if done correctly, however, it's been hijacked by American farmers who can get better prices for subsidized corn based bio-fuel than they can get selling the corn as food. It's not environmentalists who are pushing corn biofuel, it's farmers. The reason it doesn't seem rational to you is because you're not considering that it's in their best interest to get the most money they can for their product. It's the same issue with high-fructose corn syrup, it's heavily subsidized because the farm lobby has convinced the government to subsidize their income at everyone else's expense.