What does new glacier data mean for the climate debate?
This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by Hutzpa (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).
The rivers and glaciers that descend from the steep slopes of the Himalaya mountain range help to provide water for the 1.4 billion people that live in its shadow. Any interruption in this flow could have severe implications in a region blighted by political tension and poverty.
A paper published in the science journal Nature this week which revealed that there has been no appreciable loss of ice from the region's glaciers over the past decade has been met with relief and surprise. The findings have also been greeted with delight by climate sceptics who have long viewed claims made about the melting of Himalayan glaciers as unfounded and alarmist.
The study's authors used data obtained between 2003 and 2010 from the twin Grace satellites to detect and record any tiny, regional shifts in the Earth's gravitational field. A decline in ice mass resulted in a reduction of this pull as they orbited the planet.
The study was the first ever attempt made using satellite data to create a detailed, region-by-region picture of the planet's 20 largest glaciers and ice caps (GICs . Previously, GICs have largely been monitored on the ground with the data being extrapolated from just a handful of sites to provide a conclusion about the state of a wider region's ice mass. Of the world's 160,000 glaciers, only 120 had ever been directly measured before this new study – and only 37 had an archive of measurements stretching back more than 30 years. The physical terrain and travel restrictions in the Himalayas have made it notoriously hard for scientists to monitor ice levels in the area meaning most measurements have been obtained from lower altitude glaciers which are far more vulnerable to climate change.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/10/glacier-data-climate-change-debate
Maybe some of the measures we've put in place are having some effect?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
bemildred
(90,061 posts)But many trees will be killed over it anyway.
shraby
(21,946 posts)the lower altitudes. Those that are much higher have the cold and thinner oxygen of higher altitudes which would keep them from melting off as easy.
Snake Alchemist
(3,318 posts)
On the Road
(20,783 posts)and would need a larger rise in temperature for the ice to melt.
If warming continues, the effects will probably creep up to higher altitudes over time.
Javaman
(65,614 posts)causing heavier snow falls.
patrice
(47,992 posts)sources, e.g. the Ganges.
stufl
(96 posts)I'm happy for those in the Himilayan watershed, but the melting of northern glaciers might just predict future problems nearer the equator.
TrogL
(32,828 posts)They're melting a lot faster and some are almost gone.
SaintPete
(533 posts)and seeing the peas and fish up near the door have melted and are starting to smell funny. Ignoring this, and looking all the way in the back where the hamburger is frozen solid, you then say "See, nothing wrong with this freezer, ya stupid liberals."
Dreamer Tatum
(10,995 posts)"These results mean nothing." = "Those dinosaur bones were put there by God to test our faith"
Period, paragraph, chapter.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)"It means nothing to people who have adopted climate change as their religion.
"These results mean nothing." = "Those dinosaur bones were put there by God to test our faith"
Period, paragraph, chapter."
xocet
(4,410 posts)The actual question really is: What does the new data mean to people who are studying the issue?
Here is an answer from the article:
Leo Hickman
...
But does this surprising discovery mean that the world's glaciers – often described as climate change's "canaries in the mine" – are not in fast retreat as a result of warming temperatures, as has long been presumed?
Prof John Wahr of the University of Colorado, one of the study's authors, warned against this conclusion: "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." He added: "It is awfully dangerous to take an eight-year record and predict even the next eight years, let alone the next century."
Bamber said the data from the study should not be interpreted to mean that climate change has been "overblown in any way". He said: "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."
A breakdown of the data does, indeed, show huge regional variations and uncertainties about the rate of decline in ice mass across the world's largest GICs. Whereas the wider Himalayan region recorded, on average, no appreciable loss, regions such as Alaska, Greenland and Antarctica saw significant declines in ice mass. In total, the world's largest GICs lost between 443-629bn tonnes of meltwater. This is causing sea levels to rise by about 1.5mm a year on average, concluded the study, in addition to the 2mm a year caused by expansion of the warming ocean.
...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/10/glacier-data-climate-change-debate
Do you have a more considered response than your previous one - a response that might address the newly reported results in the context of the accumulated body of data? Whether you do or not, the whole article is worth reading since it does offer such considered responses.
Beyond that, do you know a lot of people who have "adopted climate change as their religion"? Do you post your opinion against them or against the very notion of climate change? Inquiring minds want to know...and - yes - that pun is intended for you.
patrice
(47,992 posts)
drm604
(16,230 posts)Do you have a cite showing that some people have adopted climate change as a religion?
Oh wait... I see. You're using over the top hyperbole because you don't have any actual good arguments. I guess you don't have a cite then.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)It's like saying we can't have global warming because someplace had lots of new record low temps last winter.
Gotta look at the BIG picture.
wiggs
(8,779 posts)the sierra are much much smaller than even 20 years ago.
patrice
(47,992 posts)May don't mean global warming is not occurring, the particular physical features of the Himalayas and their location on Earth may protect them at least for a while.
The real questions are about where we are in the process and identifying the degree, location, geographical size, and duration of as many changes as possible.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)There is a whole community of people who understand the issue and what needs to be done about it, and there are millions of industry-programmed morons standing in the way.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(24,664 posts)eg
http://himalayasnepal.com/2012/01/21/himalayan-glaciers-melting/
Maybe some Himalayan glaciers are stable and some not. I'm sure there are micro-environment exceptions acrosss the range.
Some articles suggest the glaciers have been shrinking for centuries, which would mean there are forces at work in addition to mankind's release of greenhouse gases.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)The Himalayas are very close to the stratosphere, albeit still in the troposphere. Consider they are closer to the stratosphere than they are to sea level. As a result, they will get hit last by climate change, if at all.
Most climate change will affect the lower troposphere, being that the lower clouds will trap the greenhouse gasses, thus raising the temperature.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)based on the Guardian's report on Wednesday was was in itself another article which simply re-reported the findings of another: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/08/glaciers-mountains
Hutzpa
(11,461 posts)this is not for LBN, please reconsider posting in GR.