• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in last 10 years

Status
Not open for further replies.

Kosmo

Banned
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/08/glaciers-mountains?intcmp=122

The world's greatest snow-capped peaks, which run in a chain from the Himalayas to Tian Shan on the border of China and Kyrgyzstan, have lost no ice over the last decade, new research shows.

The discovery has stunned scientists, who had believed that around 50bn tonnes of meltwater were being shed each year and not being replaced by new snowfall.

The study is the first to survey all the world's icecaps and glaciers and was made possible by the use of satellite data. Overall, the contribution of melting ice outside the two largest caps – Greenland and Antarctica – is much less then previously estimated, with the lack of ice loss in the Himalayas and the other high peaks of Asia responsible for most of the discrepancy.

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."

The melting of Himalayan glaciers caused controversy in 2009 when a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change mistakenly stated that they would disappear by 2035, instead of 2350. However, the scientist who led the new work is clear that while greater uncertainty has been discovered in Asia's highest mountains, the melting of ice caps and glaciers around the world remains a serious concern.

"Our results and those of everyone else show we are losing a huge amount of water into the oceans every year," said Prof John Wahr of the University of Colorado. "People should be just as worried about the melting of the world's ice as they were before."

His team's study, published in the journal Nature, concludes that between 443-629bn tonnes of meltwater overall are added to the world's oceans each year. This is raising sea level by about 1.5mm a year, the team reports, in addition to the 2mm a year caused by expansion of the warming ocean.

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.

The impact on predictions for future sea level rise is yet to be fully studied but Bamber said: "The projections for sea level rise by 2100 will not change by much, say 5cm or so, so we are talking about a very small modification." Existing estimates range from 30cm to 1m.

Spin zone incoming

Wahr warned that while crucial to a better understanding of ice melting, the eight years of data is a relatively short time period and that variable monsoons mean year-to-year changes in ice mass of hundreds of billions of tonnes. "It is awfully dangerous to take an eight-year record and predict even the next eight years, let alone the next century," he said.

He, of course, left out this is completely valid to extrapolate if the data supports man made global warming.

The reason for the radical reappraisal of ice melting in Asia is the different ways in which the current and previous studies were conducted. Until now, estimates of meltwater loss for all the world's 200,000 glaciers were based on extrapolations of data from a few hundred monitored on the ground. Those glaciers at lower altitudes are much easier for scientists to get to and so were more frequently included, but they were also more prone to melting.

The bias was particularly strong in Asia, said Wahr: "There extrapolation is really tough as only a handful of lower-altitude glaciers are monitored and there are thousands there very high up."

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. "They fly at 500km, so they see everything," said Wahr, including the hard-to-reach, high-altitude glaciers.

"I believe this data is the most reliable estimate of global glacier mass balance that has been produced to date," said Bamber. He noted that 1.4 billion people depend on the rivers that flow from the Himalayas and Tibetan plateau: "That is a compelling reason to try to understand what is happening there better."

He added: "The new data does not mean that concerns about climate change are overblown in any way. It means there is a much larger uncertainty in high mountain Asia than we thought. Taken globally all the observations of the Earth's ice – permafrost, Arctic sea ice, snow cover and glaciers – are going in the same direction."

Grace launched in 2002 and continues to monitor the planet, but it has passed its expected mission span and its batteries are beginning to weaken. A replacement mission has been approved by the US and German space agencies and could launch in 2016.

Things in lower Michigan have been very mild this year. As Dennis Miller said: "One man's imminent global catastrophe is another man's 'It's nice out.'"
 

Orayn

Member
A scientist pointing out that eight years is a very short time in the greater scheme of things is not a "spin zone" comment.
 
So what you're saying is that people who don't believe that any climate change is going on don't have to explain the massive reduction in arctic/antarctic ice in the past few years, but people who believe that it is have to explain this. Got it, thanks.
 
Depends where you are. La Nina has kept a lot of the cold air in Canada and Alaska - Alaska has had ridiculous amounts of snow.

In prairie-Canada, we've had a record-setting winter. Whereas normally we see -30C days, we've been seeing between 0 and -10 for most of the season so far. Absolutely mind-boggling.
 

Kosmo

Banned
So what you're saying is that people who don't believe that any climate change is going on don't have to explain the massive reduction in arctic/antarctic ice in the past few years, but people who believe that it is have to explain this. Got it, thanks.

Who says climate change isn't going on? When has Earth's climate NOT changed? The questions are whether 1) Man contributes to it 2) If so, to what degree/significance 3) If the current change going on will really have any impact (and are they necessarily negative impacts)?
 

Kosmo

Banned

KHarvey16

Member
Why are we to believe that a nominal increase in global temperatures (where the Earth has been before) are necessarily bad? It's all rhetoric.



This I'm on board with. We should be focusing on sooty emissions, not CO2.

Perhaps you could consult the science and find out? The "the earth has always been changing!" argument is the obvious sign of someone who hasn't bothered to look at the science available to them. There's no excuse for it.
 

Measley

Junior Member
If you think man-made climate change is a hoax, you're free to believe that. However, if you happen to be wrong, wouldn't it be better to create renewable, clean energy either way? Its like opponents of man-made climate change just want people to give them a license to dump waste and pollute to their heart's content.
 

Orayn

Member
If you think man-made climate change is a hoax, you're free to believe that. However, if you happen to be wrong, wouldn't it be better to create renewable, clean energy either way? Its like opponents of man-made climate change just want people to give them a license to dump waste and pollute to their heart's content.

WHAT IF WE MAKE A BETTER WORLD FOR NOTHING?
 
Worth the repost:

whatif.jpg
 

DanteFox

Member
Perhaps you could consult the science and find out? The "the earth has always been changing!" argument is the obvious sign of someone who hasn't bothered to look at the science available to them. There's no excuse for it.

Isn't the "science" exactly what's being questioned though?
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
So what you're saying is that people who don't believe that any climate change is going on don't have to explain the massive reduction in arctic/antarctic ice in the past few years, but people who believe that it is have to explain this. Got it, thanks.

Only Arctic ice is decreasing. Antarctic ice is actually increasing (some say due to the ozone layer but who knows really. It's also been experiencing larger shifts than before, but who knows what that means, too).

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/
 

KHarvey16

Member
Isn't the "science" exactly what's being questioned though?

"The science" is not being questioned, particular methods of measuring one facet of the environment around us are being refined. This doesn't have any impact on our understanding of the fundamental mechanisms behind anthropogenic global warming, just a particular method we've used to measure its effects. The science certainly doesn't rely on how much ice is lost in the Himalayas.
 

Osiris

I permanently banned my 6 year old daughter from using the PS4 for mistakenly sending grief reports as it's too hard to watch or talk to her
*Reads tag*

Ok.

*Moves on, ignores post*
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Okay, to be serious for a bit.

Shockingly enough, I'm not one of them fancy climaterologists with their college DEE-grees and such. In fact, I don't know much about climatology in general. I wouldn't be surprised if even someone like Kosmo legitimately knows more about the science then I do. But like with most situations, one would think you would go with whatever side the scientific consensus is on.

-97%+ of oncologists believe in a causal link between cigarettes and lung cancer.
-97%+ of biologists believe in evolution
-97%+ of geologists believe that the Earth is more than 6,000 years old.
-97%+ of the medical community doesn't think that treating diabetes with exorcisms is appropriate.


So why the heck do we agree with the scientific consensus on pretty much everything BUT global warming?
 

Talon

Member
A handful of articles doesn't confound consensus within the science community.

And, honestly, as a part of the media, we are far more likely to publish exceptions, whether relevant or not, over stories supporting established fact. We do a terrible, terrible job when it comes to science reporting.

Nobody's interested in writing an article with the lead "Ice core samples yet again support accelerate global warming for XX year in a row."
 

Plasmid

Member
Is this why last week it was 73 degrees when this time last year we had 25 degree weather and snow?

Because seriously i'm getting pissed off at winter this year.
 

squidyj

Member
Is there any analysis of their method of gathering data?

I wonder how accurate a satellite can be measuring fluctuations in gravitation.


A handful of articles doesn't confound consensus within the science community.

And, honestly, as a part of the media, we are far more likely to publish exceptions, whether relevant or not, over stories supporting established fact. We do a terrible, terrible job when it comes to science reporting.

Nobody's interested in writing an article with the lead "Ice core samples yet again support accelerate global warming for XX year in a row."

They're even less interested in the 50th study that confirms the findings of the earlier studies and asserts that the sky is indeed and remains blue.
 
This is one of those scientific issues where it's simple on the surface to present, but it gets really complicated and nuanced as you pore into details. It's easy to explain to someone who has a low level of scientific literacy the effect of CO2 on the greenhouse effect, thus warming the planet. It's kind of like explaining how how electrons work through the Bohr model, it's good enough to give someone a basic understanding, but if you really want to understand and go through all the complexities, you got a lot of work ahead of you.

Related to the post though, the 2035/2350 was obviously just a typo and I believe the authors' said as much. I'm quite surprised there was 'zero' ice lost and would be interested to see the details on local gains and losses. Are the fields going up and down around the 'zero' point or are larger losses being offset by gains in certain fields? Could be good news if expected losses will take longer to materialize, though I doubt the extension is long enough to be meaningful.
 

Talon

Member
Folks, just take two hours to read about the science journals that popped out of nowhere in the early 80s to publish papers doubting global warming. Follow the money trail and you'll see where they came from. Hint, three letter word.
They're even less interested in the 50th study that confirms the findings of the earlier studies and asserts that the sky is indeed and remains blue.
It's a vicious cycle.

As a publication with a wide audience, you write to the LCD. Even if you're writing quality long-form journalism, you're doing this realizing that a minuscule number of readers are actually going to care to read your whole piece.

Editorial decisions are made based on the (unfortunately probably accurate) belief that readers have the attention span of a goldfish. Reasonable readers see a news source as a rag. And so forth.

I am excited for massive disruption within journalism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom