Climate change halves Peru glacier: official

Feb 23, 2011
An undated photo released by ANDINA in 2010 shows technicians on the Huaytapallana snowcap in the central Andes in Junin, Peru. A glacier on Peru's Huaytapallana Moutain shed half its surface ice in just 23 years, officials said Wednesday, reinforcing concerns of climate change's growing threat to fresh water resources.

A glacier on Peru's Huaytapallana Moutain shed half its surface ice in just 23 years, officials said Wednesday, reinforcing concerns of climate change's growing threat to fresh water resources.

"Recent scientific studies indicate that between June 1983 and August 2006, the glacier has lost 50 percent of its surface ice," Erasmo Meza, manager of natural resources and the environment in the central Andean region of Junin, told the official Andina news agency.

He said the five square kilometers (1.9 square miles) of ice shrinkage on Huaytapallana, whose steep, jagged glacier and breathtaking lakes are popular tourist draws, was caused by global warming and presents growing problems in agriculture, health, fresh water resources and disaster mitigation.

To prevent further deterioration on the 5,557-meter (18,230-foot) mountain, the regional government of Junin is developing a project to declare Huaytapallana a natural conservation area -- a move Meza said could help prevent damage from a mining company doing a feasibility study in the area.

Glacier studies are often carried out in the Andes, the so-called "Roof of the Americas" region comprising more than 100 peaks above 5,000 meters (16,500 feet).

But the Huaytapallana studies show a sharper rate of glacial melt than other major findings.

A 2009 World Bank-published report said that in the last 35 years, Peru's glaciers have shrunk by 22 percent, leading to a 12 percent loss in the amount of fresh water reaching the coast -- home to most of the country's citizens.

It also warned that Andean and the peaks' permanent snow caps could disappear in 20 years if no measures are taken to tackle , echoing the findings of Peruvian agencies.

One of the most threatened is Pastoruri, a 5,200-meter (17,060-foot) peak in Huascaran National Park in northern that is home to Huascaran Mountain, Peru's highest point at 6,768 meters (22,200 feet).

Explore further: Rio's Olympic golf course in legal bunker

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Scientists expect increased melting of mountain glaciers

Jan 20, 2006

Sea level rise due to increased melting of mountain glaciers and polar ice caps will be much lower in the 21st Century than previously estimated. However, decay of mountain glaciers in due to global warming will be much more ...

Global glacier melt continues

Jan 29, 2009

Glaciers around the globe continue to melt at high rates. Tentative figures for the year 2007, of the World Glacier Monitoring Service at the University of Zurich, Switzerland, indicate a further loss of average ice thickness ...

2 more glaciers gone from Glacier National Park

Apr 07, 2010

(AP) -- Glacier National Park has lost two more of its namesake moving icefields to climate change, which is shrinking the rivers of ice until they grind to a halt, a government researcher said Wednesday.

Recommended for you

Rio's Olympic golf course in legal bunker

17 hours ago

The return of golf to the Olympics after what will be 112 years by the time Rio hosts South America's first Games in 2016 comes amid accusations environmental laws were got round to build the facility in ...

User comments : 11

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Doug_Huffman
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 23, 2011
Climate change halves Peru glacier: official
All y'all "scientists" are supernumerary now we've official data. Still, it can't be falsified and, so, is not scientific, but supernatural. Supernatural Man to the rescue!
Parsec
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 23, 2011
Climate change halves Peru glacier: official
All y'all "scientists" are supernumerary now we've official data. Still, it can't be falsified and, so, is not scientific, but supernatural. Supernatural Man to the rescue!

You are so off base it is hard to refute. I guess the kindest thing to say is that you have utterly no concept of how ignorant you sound, or how wrong you are.
Shelgeyr
1 / 5 (8) Feb 23, 2011
Climate change halves Peru glacier: official


Unless the report was referring to the specific Huaytapallana micro-climate, then I don't mind saying it's officially wrong. And of course they obviously meant "global" climate.

It also warned that Andean glaciers and the peaks' permanent snow caps could disappear in 20 years if no measures are taken to tackle climate change, echoing the findings of Peruvian agencies.


That always seems to be the general prognosis. I just know I've heard this before...

...the five square kilometers [snip] of ice shrinkage on Huaytapallana [snip] was caused by global warming...


That's an opinion, one that's not necessarily supported by the evidence, and (worldwide) is driven by politics.

Bah. If I had money to bet, and a reliable bookie, I'd put a lot on the glacier still being there in 20 years, so my kids could collect the fortune.
Howhot
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 24, 2011
Well, having seen Glacier International lately, if they say half the glaciers are gone, I believe them. It's not my hot air thats melting them.
dollymop
5 / 5 (3) Feb 25, 2011
Just go to Alaska and look around. Lots of bare earth where glacier was 50 years ago. They have really retreated.
Howhot
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 25, 2011
You know, it really doesn't take much to see global warming. If you frequent fly into Denver, just look at the snow caps on the mountains. Or the Grand Tetons. Some places where there was year-long snow, just don't exist now. And it takes 100s-1000s of years to make glacier ice packs.

And these damn deniers want to tell you everything is fine, there is not a need for green energy, keep using coal, oil, and anything else that burns for your energy needs.

mongander
1 / 5 (2) Feb 27, 2011
The glacier was likely formed in the first place by....you guessed it, climate change. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Shelgeyr
1 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2011
Howhot, please chill. Your labeling of those who disagree with your hysterics "damn deniers" is getting a bit old, and does nothing to strengthen your side of the argument.

For one thing, if "global warming" (regardless of cause) was taking place, there would likely be a notable increase in precipitation. However, glacial retreat/shrinkage is often not simply a case of increased LOCAL temperatures, but of a marked decrease in LOCAL precipitation.

So how can you be so sure that glacial retreat - any specific glacial retreat - is caused by "global warming"? It might be the opposite. Or it might be an alteration in precipitation patterns. And depending on where you look, could be a LOCAL combination of factors. Remember, although they're apparently in the minority, some glaciers are growing. How can that be?

How about we learn an awful lot more before we shove all the "deniers'" legitimate concerns aside in order to implement some global economy-killing green agenda, OK?
Howhot
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2011
Bah. If I had money to bet, and a reliable bookie, I'd put a lot on the glacier still being there in 20 years, so my kids could collect the fortune.


Really? I might take that be. Give me 40 years, and I will just about guarantee the well be gone by 80%.

Howhot, please chill

I can't.

When glaciers are retreating as fast as they have, and the ice of Greenland, The artic and the anartic, ice is melting at a pace far faster than anyone expected, and the only source of heating is from AGW sources, denial of Anthropogenic Global Warming is denying all observed evidence.


Shelgeyr
1 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2011
Howhot: You said in part "...artic and the anartic, ice is melting at a pace far faster than anyone expected" while letting you slide on the imprecision, I still dispute it. Reputable studies exist which disagree on how much ice there even is at the poles. Rather than pick and choose facts, I think this is a case where it is safe to say the facts aren't really known.

You also say in part "...and the only source of heating is from AGW sources..." Wrong.

The list of items not generally considered in Warmist reports is lengthy and includes such things as the Solar electrical input into our atmosphere. At a minimum this is in the mega- to giga-amperage range. The extent of its effect is poorly understood even by those who study it. We don't know Earth's temperature all over, nor is there agreement on how to derive an "average global temperature". Don't you have to have a starting point in order to demonstrate change?

I trust my edits didn't change your intended context, right?
Howhot
3 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2011
Hi Shelger. You make a good observation and that is there is disagreement regarding things like the history of average temperatures back 100,000 years back. However, the more scientists perfect their techniques at measuring temps (for exp: looking at tree-ring thickness in petrified wood) can a truth be made.

Ultimately science is all about truth and understanding it.

Every observation tends to conclude that AGW is the cause for temperature rise, ice melts of the artic, anartic, greenland ice, and glaciers.

. Don't you have to have a starting point in order to demonstrate change?


Yes I do.