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."
Entirely normal during climate change. (Score:3, Interesting)
CLIMATE change means, climates will change locally, and in micro-climate level.
global warming means, the AVERAGE world temperature will rise. 2 degrees celsius rise in a temperature, wouldnt be felt in your locale if happened. you wouldnt notice it.
but, if AVERAGE world temperature rises by 2 degrees celsius, this means that to effect that AVERAGE rise, innumerable local and micro-climates around the world will change, in WHATEVER fashion.
hence, the CLIMATE CHANGE term. a more correct term that describes the EFFECT that the CAUSE, global warming, has.
some locales may not see ANY change. some locales may get freaking hot. some locales may get cold. some locales may become rainforests. some locales can go humid, some go dry. some become exceedingly windy. ANYthing goes.
so, some ice melting around the world, some staying, is perfectly normal.
climate change is more destructive, because it is impossible to predict what will change and how.
was a mass study not an actual ice study. (Score:4, Interesting)
The new study used a pair of satellites, called Grace, which measure tiny changes in the Earth's gravitational pull. When ice is lost, the gravitational pull weakens and is detected by the orbiting spacecraft.
Bristol University glaciologist Prof Jonathan Bamber, who was not part of the research team, said: "The very unexpected result was the negligible mass loss from high mountain Asia, which is not significantly different from zero."
--
So what they were measuring was mass loss. Not exactly ice loss.
But in general ice/water moves a lot faster than rock. Still rock ways more than water. So they assumed all changes or not were ice/water.
What if the moutains got a bit taller as the ice was removed? That would seem to balance out the loss of ice.
Hmm, "The Himalayas continue to rise more than 1 cm a year "
I sure hope they at least subtract out that known growth rate. 1cm of rock over the entire mountain range is a lot of mass.
Anyone have the actual article did they subtrace mass increases due to mountain growth? And how did they calculate mountain growth. These things can go from positive to negative really quickly with a small change fudge factors like this.
Seems to me (Score:2, Interesting)
Even AGW people admit that water is the REAL problem, and that CO2 is just a trigger for increases in that heat-storing gas. But for some reason they seem to chafe at the idea of using condensers and other methods to remove the water from the air. For some reason they can't process the fact that water is being continuously pumped into the air, and that even though it falls back out in a few days, it is CONTINUOUSLY pumped up. 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.
freezing point depression of solution (Score:3, Interesting)
Could it be because they haven't received a sufficient level of pollution, or the ice and snow are too cold to dissolve and allow the pollutants to dissolve in water? Adding solute to solvent depresses the freezing point. Just shortly (a year or two) after we started getting news about noticeable and unavoidable amounts of pollutants showing up in the cubic meters of air tested atop the Swiss Alps, we started getting news about the imminent collapse of the Alps' mostly glacial makeup. But that's because the alps, just warm enough for the glacier ice to melt just enough on the surface to admit pollutants, ended up with a depressed freezing point. On the other hand, I don't know about the quality of air on the Himalayas, but it could be possible that the ice never comes below freezing and so even if there were pollutants settling on the snow, they wouldn't make it into solution.
Always helpful to RTFA before blathering... (Score:5, Interesting)
Note that this is not a reply to any particular prior comment...
From TFA:
That is exactly what one would expect for some degree of overall warming. The highest parts of the Himalayas are still high and cold enough to freeze out every bit of moisture in the air that brings them snow, but that air (mostly monsoon flow from the south) is generally moister because it and the ocean it has passed are significantly warmer than in the past. The result is low glaciers melting back from the warm air and rain instead of snow and higher protoglacial snowpack growing faster than the existing glacier paths can move out.
This is very basic weather science: more snow in routinely cold places does not mean they are getting colder, it means they are getting more injections of warm humid air. Of course that's only true as long as the cold predominates, because eventually it all turns to rain. I've watched this happen in Michigan, where we've gone from record snowfall years (but not record cold) to unusually warm and soaked-through winters.
Comment removed (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:As someone who thinks GW is real (Score:5, Interesting)
You can have #1 without #2.
On top of that, the implied #3 (GW is a bad thing) is also disputable.
So, say we agree on the actual temperature *data* observed and stipulate to #1. What data would convince you that #2, or #3 aren't true?
Re:As someone who thinks GW is real (Score:5, Interesting)
Yep. That's science, doing exactly what the deniers claim it doesn't do, and that's the reason why those who value knowledge over ideology favor the scientists over the deniers.
I've given up worrying about the climate change in itself. The denialists have won, and will win, until it's far too late (as it may already be). I'd kind of like to see science win out over ignorance, and I think science still has a slight edge. It maintains that edge by being the ones who take into account all of the facts to reach true conclusions, and altering their understanding when new facts come to light to keep their conclusions in line with the best understanding.
As a way to understand the world, it's more effective than ideology. As a way to make things happen, it's getting trounced, at least in this area. Perhaps I should care about the latter more than the former, but having lost there, I take what solace I can in at least trying to understand the world. Even if it means that some day the retards get to score extra points.
Denier language from global warming enthusiasts... (Score:5, Interesting)
The funniest quote was from the University of Colorado Professor Wahr who states: ""It is awfully dangerous to take an eight-year record and predict even the next eight years, let alone the next century," he said." That's what us deniers say! Maybe we are reaching a 'consensus.' He prefaces his comments by saying: "Our results and those of everyone else show we are losing a huge amount of water into the oceans every year, people should be just as worried about the melting of the world's ice as they were before." I can assure Professor Wahr that denier concern levels about the melting of the world's ice is unchanged from before the release of the study. Most importantly for Prof. Wahr, 'everyone else' is still solidly behind the 'we are losing huge amounts of ice' school of thought in spite of the pesky Himalaya study.
Re:Controversy aside (Score:2, Interesting)
With all due respect this is nonsense in relation to the article reported. If our predictions suggest '50 billion tonnes of ice should melt' from a given place and we see 0, than our 'predictions' can not be trusted. Suggesting that what matters is 'global ice pack' changes is immaterial to the point of the article. If people are expected to act not on 'observation' but 'prediction' than those predictions have to be relied on. The observation in the article demonstrates that at least some of our predictions are wrong and therefore can't be relied on. That provides evidence to question other predictions (rightly or wrongly).
If we observe a natural phenomenon that doesn't conform to our predictions coming from say the 'Theory of Gravity' than we must review and try to correct our theory. Of course we haven't observed this behavior so we continue to trust the Theory of Gravity (or General Relativity if you want to be precise).
Reading more on this particular article & related links it disturbs me greatly that the actual lesson here isn't being learned. Given that those who want to quickly disavow that this measurement means anything in relation to 'climate change' are referencing "estimates" from only 5 years of previous data (and than claiming that 8 years of data shouldn't be relied on) and that the difference in observation is greater than the error bounds of the previous estimates of sea level rise due to this contribution (e.g. 0.41 ± 0.08, when the observation is 'less than half the value' of the estimate)...in other words the 'estimate' has error bars on it (+/- .08) implying a degree of 'certainty' and our observations totally destroy that 'degree of certainty'....
In other words there are significant groups of people wanting significant changes to human behavior based partly on 'observation' though mostly on 'predictions' that we will be in 'dire consequences' in 25, 50, 100 years (pick the number of today's prediction), but yet some of those predictions are shown to be wrong. The argument will than continue to "we can't wait" and/or 'but what if SOME of our predictions are correct?'...and this is what we should base significant, civilization altering decisions on?
As George Carlin says "The planet isn't in trouble, PEOPLE may be in trouble"....so, frankly I'm not all that concerned. If humans are meant to survive as an 'evolutionary offshoot of the planet' than we'll figure a way to deal with Climate Change (e.g. less people, population shifts, industrial changes, etc.)...if not, we won't. The planet will survive, it has been for 4.5 billion years, through a heck of a lot worse things than humans have done to it.
Re:As someone who thinks GW is real (Score:5, Interesting)
You know... Calling someone "deniers" is quite simply not science at all- it's just another form of religion when you start down that path.
Re:The 100% claim is essentially correct (Score:2, Interesting)
There's also extremely solid evidence that the climate has been much warmer today with ten times the amount of CO2 in the air, and not only was life just grand then. Life flourished, and was even more diverse then, then it is today. . So, we're going to base all of our information on 150-200 years roughly. With 20-30 years of 'goodish' data, with 5-15 years of not bad data, with 5 years of okay data. That the earth is warming. Not forgetting that, it's been so much warmer when humans weren't even involved.
Beh.
Re:The 100% claim is essentially correct (Score:5, Interesting)
There's also extremely solid evidence that the climate has been much warmer today with ten times the amount of CO2 in the air, and not only was life just grand then, life flourished, and was even more diverse then, then it is today.
Yes, AFTER life adapted to the environment. When the climate shifted rapidly it caused an extinction event. In fact, every time there has been a rapid climate change there has been an extinction event. Only when life has adapted to the new conditions does it "flourish".
You're also equating the world millions of years ago to the world of today, which is naive.
So, we're going to base all of our information on 150-200 years roughly.
Hardly. Paleoclimate reconstructions go back reliably for thousands of years.
With 20-30 years of 'goodish' data, with 5-15 years of not bad data, with 5 years of okay data.
You're confusing weather and climate. Don't do that.
That the earth is warming. Not forgetting that, it's been so much warmer when humans weren't even involved.
Beh.
No one is arguing that. However, the Earth does not warm up just because it wants to. Climate change happens when something about the planet changes. These can be volcanic eruptions, asteroid impacts, extended solar minimums, orbital variations, etc. .
Here's what we are observing. The planet is warming rapidly. The trend started about 100 years or so ago. We have not undergone any noticeable orbital or axial variations. Solar output has not significantly increased or decreased. The Earth does not produce a significant amount of surface heat.
Given all that, come up with a way for the planetary temperature to rise WITHOUT using the significant increases in GHGs and DOESN'T violate the laws of thermodynamics.
Re:The 100% claim is essentially correct (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Skeptical != Scientific (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not sure how good this news is. From the Guardian article:
The scientists are careful to point out that lower-altitude glaciers in the Asian mountain ranges – sometimes dubbed the "third pole" – are definitely melting. Satellite images and reports confirm this. But over the study period from 2003-10 enough ice was added to the peaks to compensate.
So while the total amount of ice has remained relatively stable it appears the snowfall is moving up in elevation. As the atmosphere warms it can hold more water vapor so a possible cause of the increase in ice at higher elevations is warmer temperatures carrying water vapor higher before it precipitates out. The news may ameliorate some of the concerns over the water delivered by glaciers to the lowlands but it doesn't appear to me to be evidence against global warming.
Re:The 100% claim is essentially correct (Score:5, Interesting)
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=886&dat=19890326&id=dOdSAAAAIBAJ&sjid=KYEDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6879,6110878 [google.com]
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station
Inital proposed costs 2.8 Billion
Final Cost 5.8 Billion, 9.3 Billion with Financing added in
1.8 million Manhours wasted
I talked with a Senior Security employee at APS once who started out back in the day working security at the construction of that plant and he told me this story.
Due to regulations each contractor had to have the contents of their tool bag inventoried before they were allowed to begin work or leave work.
Each item brought into the plant had to be listed on a sheet with each Item getting a line.
Example 1 box of screws
1. cardboard box screws with plastic window 50 count
2. plastic window from box of screws 50 count
3. 1 screw - from box of screws 50 count
4. 1 screw from box of screws 50 count
5. 1 screw from box of screws 50 count
I could go on but you get the point
This was in the days before computers were everywhere so it had to be hand written At the end of the shift the same procedure was followed and the lists were compared and if there was any discrepency between the two and the contractors work log which recorded each item used and where it was used, a security guard had to accompany the contractor to locate the missing item and recover it.
Initally contractors were put on the clock before they entered security and taken off the clock after they exited security, so there was incentive for workers to pad their hours by bring in unnecessary boxes of screws, and ocassionally leaving an item in the facility so that they could milk overtime. eventually it was sorted out but the contractors constantly found ways to abuse the regulations to justify extra pay.
The plant at the time of the above story had no nuclear material present and the above work area that the contractors were being let into would never be exposed to nuclear material during operation (office building), but the regulation was in place purportedly to reduce the amount of potential nuclear waste by limiting and controlling the amount of material that went into the plant.
Until the regulations governing nuclear power plant construction are rationalized there will be almost no nuclear plant construction in the US and it will always be expensive and over budget. Nuclear is cheaper than current solar technologies and coal but its the regulations that drive up the cost.