No ice loss seen in major Himalayan glaciers: scientists

Apr 15, 2012
Three Pakistani labourers stand with mountains of the Himalayan Karakoram range in 2004. One of the world's biggest glacier regions has so far resisted global warming that has ravaged mountain ice elsewhere, scientists reported on Sunday.

One of the world's biggest glacier regions has so far resisted global warming that has ravaged mountain ice elsewhere, scientists reported on Sunday.

For years, experts have debated the state of glaciers that smother nearly 20,000 square kilometres (7,700 sq. miles) of the Karakoram range in the western Himalayas.

Straddling parts of China, Pakistan and India, the Karakoram's peaks include K2, Earth's second-highest mountain.

Its glaciers account for nearly three percent of the world's area of ice outside the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica.

In locations around the planet, are shrinking in response to higher temperatures, contributing importantly to .

Yet the situation for the Karakoram has until now been sketchy.

Scientists have found it almost impossible to study the glaciers on the ground, for the region lies at great altitude in a border area, and access is hampered by snow avalanches and glacial debris.

But a French team, comparing 3-D satellite maps from 2000 and 2008, said the glaciers had not lost mass over this period and may even have grown a tiny bit, at 0.11 millimetres (0.04 of an inch) per year.

"Apparently, the situation in the Karakoram is a little different (from elsewhere), which means that the glaciers are stable for the time being," Julie Gardelle of the University of Grenoble in southeastern France told AFP.

"But it does not detract in any way from the evidence for overall global warming," she cautioned.

The paper, published in the journal , is based on satellite scrutiny of 5,615 sq. km. (2,167 sq. miles) of the central Karakoram, between the Yarkant River on the Chinese side of the border and the Indus River on the Pakistani side.

The study area lies outside the Siachen glacier, the scene of a military standoff between Pakistan and India, which according to the Sustainable Development Policy Institute in Islamabad has shrunk by 10 kilometres (six miles) in the past 35 years.

In a commentary also carried by Nature Geoscience, Graham Cogley of Trent University in Ontario, Canada, said it was unclear why the Karakoram had so far been spared the impact of warming.

"It seems that, by a quirk of the atmospheric general circulation that is not understood, more snow is being delivered to the mountain range at present, and less heat," said Cogley.

The health of the Himalayan glaciers is closely watched, for they supply water for more than a billion people in South Asia and China.

In February, a US-led study published in Nature found that ice loss from the Himalayas was significant but had been badly over-estimated.

It calculated loss of four billion tonnes a year, compared with previous estimates of up to 50 billion.

It said past estimates were based on runoff from lower-altitude -- which are worse hit by warming than higher-altitude ones -- and on drainage figures from the vast plains south of the Himalayas.

Much of this drainage came in fact from water that had been pumped from underground aquifers on the plains, not from meltwater from the mountains, the study said.

Explore further: Changing global diets is vital to reducing climate change

More information: DOI: 10.1038/ngeo1450

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

China's glaciers in meltdown mode: study

Oct 25, 2011

Sharp increases in temperature driven by global warming are melting China's Himalayan glaciers, an impact that threatens habitats, tourism and economic development, says a study released Tuesday.

Shrinking glaciers threaten China

Nov 02, 2007

China's glaciers in western Xinjiang Uygur region are shrinking alarmingly due to global and regional warming, posing a threat to the oases in the area.

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 ...

Scientists confirm Himalayan glacial melting

Dec 05, 2011

Glaciers in the Himalayas have shrunk by as much as a fifth in just 30 years, scientists have claimed in the first authoritative confirmation of the effects of climate change on the region.

Recommended for you

Changing global diets is vital to reducing climate change

15 hours ago

A new study, published today in Nature Climate Change, suggests that – if current trends continue – food production alone will reach, if not exceed, the global targets for total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissi ...

Water police on patrol in drought-scarred Los Angeles

22 hours ago

Los Angeles isn't the world's wettest city at the best of times. But a record drought has triggered extra measures—now including "water police" checking on over-zealous sprinkler users and the like.

Shell files new plan to drill in Arctic

Aug 29, 2014

Royal Dutch Shell has submitted a new plan for drilling in the Arctic offshore Alaska, more than one year after halting its program following several embarrassing mishaps.

Reducing water scarcity possible by 2050

Aug 29, 2014

Water scarcity is not a problem just for the developing world. In California, legislators are currently proposing a $7.5 billion emergency water plan to their voters; and U.S. federal officials last year ...

User comments : 132

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Lurker2358
1.5 / 5 (16) Apr 15, 2012
It's very simple.

CO2 is denser than normal air, so is found in highest concetrations at the lowest altitudes.

The Himalayas are very tall mountain ranges so their peaks are above as much as half of the troposphere. This makes tall mountains less vulnerable to the greenhouse effect.

Then, because the surface temperatures at lower altitudes are higher, water is transported to the cooler high altitudes where it precipitates out as snow.

Over time, we would expect that temperature increases from GHG would become strong enough to over-power this natural, local negative feedback.
A2G
1.9 / 5 (27) Apr 15, 2012
It is very simple....any evidence contrary to the global warming hysteria is simply explained away or ignored.

I am not taking one side or the other...but this evidence is very clearly against global warming...

The CO2 explanation above does not fly....it may be what you want it to be, but not the way reality works. so now in your thinking hot air doesn't rise or the whole earth is trapped in an inversion layer despite the evidence against that...

Try again..
A2G
2 / 5 (24) Apr 15, 2012
BTW...I would love to have proof of global warming...It would help my alt energy business tremendously...lots more $$$ in my pocket if it were true...I just don't see it...

But thanks those of you who do believe it for all the extra $$ in my pocket...
NotParker
1.8 / 5 (27) Apr 15, 2012
"and may even have grown a tiny bit"

Well they would, since it is cooling.

Glaciers: Growing
Penguins: Growing
Polar Bears: Growing
Sea Ice: Above Normal
Vendicar_Decarian
1.1 / 5 (47) Apr 15, 2012
Salt is a stone that is denser than water so it sinks to the bottom of the ocean.

"CO2 is denser than normal air, so is found in highest concetrations at the lowest altitudes." - Lurker

Idiocy
Vendicar_Decarian
1.2 / 5 (53) Apr 15, 2012
http://www.skepti...ange.gif

"Glaciers: Growing" - ParkerTard

Poor ParkerTard. His non stop stream of lies is exposed again.

After 1975, glacier shrinkage continues to accelerate until present. The mass loss from 1996 to 2005 is more than double the mass loss rate in the previous decade of 1986 to 1995 and over four times the mass loss rate over 1976 to 1985. When you narrowly focus on a few cherry picked glaciers, you can be misled into an incorrect view of global glacier trends. When you take in the broader picture, you see that globally, glaciers are shrinking at an accelerating rate.
Vendicar_Decarian
1.1 / 5 (51) Apr 15, 2012
"Several recent studies have confirmed that a number of penguin species at Antarctica, especially chinstrap and Adelie penguin are declining, and the main reason for this is not enough food, which is yet again connected to climate change."

http://ecological...-in.html

Penguins: Growing

Sorry Tard Boy, but you are dishonestly conflating changes in absolute number due to changes in counting method with changes in absolute number.

Poor ParkerTard. his lies exposed again.
Vendicar_Decarian
1.1 / 5 (51) Apr 15, 2012
"A recent article titled "No Decline in Polar Bears Populations," written by CNSNews and picked up other sources, correctly states that our group concluded that one of 19 polar bear subpopulations is currently increasing, three are stable, and eight are declining mainly due to global warming induced loss of critical sea ice habitats. It failed, however, to note that this compares negatively with our last report in 2005, which found that five subpopulations were declining, five were stable, and two were increasing." - Dr. Steven C. Amstrup, Chief Scientist, Polar Bears International

"Polar Bears: Growing" - Parker Tard

Poor ParkerTard. Not smart enough to realize that he is chronically exposed as the Conservative Liar he is.

Vendicar_Decarian
Apr 15, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
3.9 / 5 (11) Apr 15, 2012
@ A2G:

Are you trolling a science site? There are no "sides", since 98 % of climate reserachers have rejected that AGW is not happening.

In fact, predicted regional differences test AGW, or more correctly changes in the underlying GW, since they are predicted. For example, if the Gulf stream shuts off, which can happen as surface temperatures goes up, Scandinavia will become cooler.

IPCC reviews the climate science, and their 2007 report have all the evidences you need. Note that _all_published evidence supports AGW at this time, _no_ papers are against. So you can buck up and read, IIRC there are something like 20 000 papers that constitute the evidence.
kaasinees
2.1 / 5 (18) Apr 15, 2012
Maybe aliens are here and they want to convert our atmosphere into a co2 atmosphere so that they can breathe.

My only explanation for parker.
fmfbrestel
5 / 5 (10) Apr 15, 2012
Good God people. Does every bit of data on any climate topic have to be evidence for or against Global Warming?

Is is possible that GW is true and this data is also true? Yes it is.

Is it Possible that GW is False and this data is true? Yes it is.

This is not a smoking bullet.

Millenialist fear mongering on either side is ignorant and counter productive.
entropyrules
3.5 / 5 (8) Apr 15, 2012
"It's very simple. CO2 is denser than normal air, so is found in highest concetrations at the lowest altitudes."

Keep dreaming, a fudamental basis of global warming is that CO2 is well mixed throughout the atmosphere. Its a 101 fact of the IPCC rapports.
They even stated that the best proof for AGW would be a Hotspot at 6 km hight caused by CO2! And no, it was never found.
NotParker
1.8 / 5 (21) Apr 15, 2012
"and may even have grown a tiny bit"

Well they would, since it is cooling.

Glaciers: Growing
Penguins: Growing
Polar Bears: Growing
Sea Ice: Above Normal


Try and have a sense of perspective. About 1000 polar bears are shot each year by hunters. Zero die because of so-called warming.

Penguins are fine.

Global Sea Ice is above normal.

Glaciers are growing.

"In Montanas Glacier National Park, in Colorados Front Range, in Wyomings Grand Tetons, the glaciers and snowfields are actually gaining volume."

http://iceagenow.info/

"All seven glaciers on Californias Mount Shasta are growing. "

"Alaska has shown glacial growth as well. They are growing in Alaska for the first time in 250 years. In May of last year, Alaskas Hubbard Glacier was advancing at the rate of seven feet (two meters) per day more than half-a-mile per year.

"And in Icy Bay, at least three glaciers advanced a third of a mile (one half kilometer) in one year,""

NotParker
1.8 / 5 (21) Apr 15, 2012
Snow is fine too. I know AGW has predicted both less snow and then when it snowed more they changed their prediction to more snow, but the reality is : no change.

"Snowfall in the Sierra Nevada has remained consistent for 130 years, with no evidence that anything has changed as a result of climate change, according to a study released Tuesday."

http://www.sfgate...7HNQ.DTL
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (47) Apr 15, 2012
Habitat loss is the principle reason for extinction.

"Zero die because of so-called warming." - ParkerTard

"A recent article titled "No Decline in Polar Bears Populations," written by CNSNews and picked up other sources, correctly states that our group concluded that one of 19 polar bear subpopulations is currently increasing, three are stable, and eight are declining mainly due to global warming induced loss of critical sea ice habitats. It failed, however, to note that this compares negatively with our last report in 2005, which found that five subpopulations were declining, five were stable, and two were increasing." - Dr. Steven C. Amstrup, Chief Scientist, Polar Bears International
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (47) Apr 15, 2012
Why do you continue to repeat the same exposed lies Tard Boy?

Mental illness is the most likely reason.

http://stevengodd...mp;h=323

"Global Sea Ice is above normal." - ParkerTard

Perker Tard lie 2 exposed yet again.
NotParker
1.9 / 5 (23) Apr 15, 2012
Habitat loss is the principle reason for extinction.


And shooting .... mostly shooting.

"Over all, about 450 polar bears are killed annually across Nunavut."

And that 450 is only part of the hunting.

"The number of bears along the western shore of Hudson Bay, believed to be among the most threatened bear subpopulations, stands at 1,013 and could be even higher, according to the results of an aerial survey released Wednesday by the Government of Nunavut. Thats 66 per cent higher than estimates by other researchers who forecasted the numbers would fall to as low as 610 because of warming temperatures that melt ice faster and ruin bears ability to hunt. "

http://www.theglo...2392523/

Summary: AGWers can't count and make crappy predictions and ignore the shooting of polar bears.

Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (46) Apr 15, 2012
USGS Report Shows a Dramatic Decline in U.S. Glaciers

Fifty years of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) research on glacier
change shows recent dramatic shrinkage of glaciers in three climatic
regions of the United States. These long periods of record provide
clues to the climate shifts that may be driving glacier change.

http://pubs.usgs....3046.pdf

"Glaciers are growing." - ParkerTard

ParkerTard lie #3 exposed.

NotParker
1.6 / 5 (20) Apr 15, 2012

"Global Sea Ice is above normal."



Easy for anyone to check.

http://arctic.atm...rend.jpg

As for VD's mental illness ... easy for anyone to check. Just read his deranged comments.
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (47) Apr 15, 2012
"Several recent studies have confirmed that a number of penguin species at Antarctica, especially chinstrap and Adelie penguin are declining, and the main reason for this is not enough food, which is yet again connected to climate change."

http://ecological...-in.html

"Penguins are fine" - Parker Tard.

Parker Tard lie #4 exposed.
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (48) Apr 15, 2012
Easy for anyone to check.

http://arctic.atm...rend.jpg

Parker Tard's own reference graphic shows the marked decline in total sea ice area over the last 30 years.

Total sea ice volume has been declining even faster.

http://stevengodd...mp;h=323

ParkerTard lie # 5 exposed.

Mission accomplished.
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (47) Apr 15, 2012
Translation - the people who are hunting the polar bears are claiming that they are not endangered.

This reminds me of he cod fishers who claimed that the Canadian cod fishery was not in danger of collapsing as it was collapsing.

I will trust the science.

"The number of bears along the western shore of Hudson Bay, believed to be among the most threatened bear subpopulations, stands at 1,013 and could be even higher, according to the results of an aerial survey released Wednesday by the Government of Nunavut." - Parker Tard
A2G
2.4 / 5 (23) Apr 15, 2012
VD says "tard" to everyone he disagrees with

...what is this third grade again?
Vendicar_Decarian
Apr 15, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
A2G
1.7 / 5 (18) Apr 15, 2012
T. Larsson...

You don't like what I wrote so you accuse me of trolling...hahaha..

98% of climate scientists have a vested interest in AGW or else there is no reason for them to keep going...Have you seen the studies that show how many lies are being told in "funded" science just to keep funding..

One more time...Keep believing AGW or not...either way I make money...I just make more if people believe AGW..

The hysteria is what I am against... Everyone I know keeps complaining about it being colder whether they are in North America or Europe...especially Europe...

Someone who is paid to find problems will find them even if they don't exist...

Ask Al Gore...it has made him a lot of money..
Vendicar_Decarian
0.8 / 5 (43) Apr 15, 2012
Yes, in the same way that 98% of doctors have a vested interest in cancer.

"98% of climate scientists have a vested interest in AGW or else there is no reason for them to keep going..." - A2G
slack
2 / 5 (8) Apr 15, 2012
But a French team, comparing 3-D satellite maps from 2000 and 2008, said the glaciers had not lost mass over this period and may even have grown a tiny bit, at 0.11 millimetres (0.04 of an inch) per year.

Is it only me that finds this statement rather amazing?
How do you measure 0.88 millimetres over a whole glacier?
Vendicar_Decarian
0.6 / 5 (41) Apr 15, 2012
You don't.

"How do you measure 0.88 millimetres over a whole glacier?" - Slack

http://www.nature...450.html
mrtea
3.5 / 5 (11) Apr 16, 2012
I follow a number of forums on various topics, including climate change, and I have not encountered a more unpleasant poster than Vendicar Decarian. Attacking the opponent is childish in the extreme. Please stick to the topic, and avoid the personal abuse. I have submitted a report to the mods and suggest others do the same.
Oysteroid
1.8 / 5 (15) Apr 16, 2012
And of course, we are still waiting for all the Himalyan glaciers to go away by 2035. After all, that was predicted in the IPCC report and they can't lie, can they? As this is practically the only verifiable (or falsifiable) prediction they ever made, surely that should be the final test of the theory. Too bad the stubborn glaciers refuse to cooperate.
ccr5Delta32
2.2 / 5 (6) Apr 16, 2012
The first line in the article
" has so far resisted global warming that has ravaged mountain ice elsewhere"


This is a two part sentence , "has resisted ........ " and "ravaged ,,,,, elsewhere "
If you choose to ignore either part it's called "cherry picking" or worse
@ NotParker , Why only the other day you stated in your comments http://phys.org/n...zer.html that you had little confidence in GRACE satellite measurements but this time round you accept without question .Curious !
Vendicar_Decarian
0.8 / 5 (47) Apr 16, 2012
ParkerTard has no interest in honesty. His primary goal is to defend his Libertarian Ideology at any cost and by any dishonest means necessary.

In that respect he is typically Libertarian.

ParkerTard (as his alterego UbVonTard) has publicly stated that he will continue to lie until he is dead, in the defense of his Conservative political ideology.

It is a sign of mental illness.

verkle
2.4 / 5 (19) Apr 16, 2012
VD: If you are talking science and facts, then please keep it to that, and stop calling people names like retard. Using such names just takes from anything you are trying to say. It is immature and childish, like A2G says.

Thanks!

AWaB
2.2 / 5 (9) Apr 16, 2012
In defense of VD, I did actually agree with one of his first comments on the other page. He hadn't started 'tarding people. However, I did make up for 1 starring him on the rest of his posts. Shame he gets away from facts. He actually has a good point occasionally. I usually miss them because I can't handle his rants. Are we sure he's not Callipo just under an alternate sn?
Lurker2358
3 / 5 (6) Apr 16, 2012
It is very simple....any evidence contrary to the global warming hysteria is simply explained away or ignored.

I am not taking one side or the other...but this evidence is very clearly against global warming...


Did you read the entire article?

The surveyed region was not losing ice.

The study area lies outside the Siachen glacier, the scene of a military standoff between Pakistan and India, which according to the Sustainable Development Policy Institute in Islamabad has shrunk by 10 kilometres (six miles) in the past 35 years.


Shrunk by 10 kilometers in the past 35 years. That's pretty damn significant.
Lurker2358
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 16, 2012
"It's very simple. CO2 is denser than normal air, so is found in highest concetrations at the lowest altitudes."

Keep dreaming, a fudamental basis of global warming is that CO2 is well mixed throughout the atmosphere. Its a 101 fact of the IPCC rapports.
They even stated that the best proof for AGW would be a Hotspot at 6 km hight caused by CO2! And no, it was never found.


6km is in the lower 3rd of the Troposphere, and below the peaks of most of the Himalayas.

Everest and K2 are about 9 kilometers above sea level.

Idiocy


It's an absolute fact that gases do not mix perfectly evenly in the atmosphere.

Why the heck do you think a hydrogen or helium balloon rises out of sight until it pops?
rikvanriel
2.6 / 5 (9) Apr 16, 2012
98% of climate scientists agree that (1) the earth has warmed over the past century, and (2) human activities have contributed significantly to it.

This does not imply they all believe in catastrophic warming, or even that human activities caused more than half the observed warming. Essentially all skeptics of catastrophic AGW agree with these two statements.

The 98% number is really quite meaningless once you look at what those scientists actually agreed with.
rikvanriel
1 / 5 (6) Apr 16, 2012
And of course, we are still waiting for all the Himalyan glaciers to go away by 2035. After all, that was predicted in the IPCC report and they can't lie, can they? As this is practically the only verifiable (or falsifiable) prediction they ever made, surely that should be the final test of the theory. Too bad the stubborn glaciers refuse to cooperate.


It doesn't help that the report they quoted says the glaciers might disappear in 2350. The IPCC transposed a few numbers and refused to fix that in their report once somebody pointed it out. Maybe not the most meaningful prediction to check...

It may make more sense to look at the temperature predictions the IPCC made 20 years ago. Are we still inside the error bars of those predictions?
Vendicar_Decarian
0.7 / 5 (42) Apr 16, 2012
Mistakes happen, even with IPCC procedures. In this case a decimal point was inadvertently lost and 350 became 35.

It is not an unreasonable find given the reports size of several thousand pages.

"And of course, we are still waiting for all the Himalyan glaciers to go away by 2035. After all, that was predicted in the IPCC report and they can't lie, can they?" - OysterTard

Denialist Tards will continue to whine about it however, since they can't manage to find fault with IPCC science.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.6 / 5 (41) Apr 16, 2012
6'C is catastrophic

3'C is the median projection for 2100

Twice the median projection will be seen in the years following 2100 due to climate inertia in the years following 2100 even if CO2 emissions drop to zero on Jan 1 2100.

So at 3'C by 2100 a catastrophic 6'C rise is guaranteed.

"This does not imply they all believe in catastrophic warming, or even that human activities caused more than half the observed warming" - RikTard
NotParker
2 / 5 (16) Apr 16, 2012

"Global Sea Ice is above normal."



Easy for anyone to check.

http://arctic.atm...rend.jpg

As for VD's mental illness ... easy for anyone to check. Just read his deranged comments.


Remember, evey AGW lie goes on the front page.

Every corrections stays hidden away.

Global Ice is fine.

Penguins are fine.

The biggest Glacier region in the world are gaining mass.

The GRACE satellite team keeps issuing corrections shrinking the amount of ice melting until they finally admitted glaciers were growing.

The same corrections will occur for Greenland.

The only human factor in Polar Bear deaths is shooting.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.7 / 5 (42) Apr 16, 2012
Density is a bulk property that has no meaning when a solute is dissolved in a solvent on the atomic or molecular scale.

"Why the heck do you think a hydrogen or helium balloon rises out of sight until it pops?" - Lurker

Hydrogen atoms do not float to the upper atmosphere and vanish.
You are hallucinating.

Vendicar_Decarian
0.6 / 5 (40) Apr 16, 2012
ParkerTard's picture shows a rather rapid reduction in global sea ice extent.

http://arctic.atm...rend.jpg

His psychological illness seems to affect his vision.

It is anticipated that the arctic will be essentially ice free in summer before 2030.
ccr5Delta32
3 / 5 (4) Apr 16, 2012
The GRACE satellite team keeps issuing corrections shrinking the amount of ice melting until they finally admitted glaciers were growing.


@NotParker this is from 2008 http://adsabs.har...32B..04B

From the abstract in the above paper
"suggest a regional positive mass balance. Direct confirmation of this has been determined from an analysis of GRACE (Gravity Recovery And Climate Experiment) gravity field data "

Lurker2358
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 16, 2012
NotParker:

You are a freaking dumbass.

Many of the lakes in the U.S. and Canada are experiencing completely melting 3 to 7 weeks ahead of normal this year.

Lake Michigan is about 3C above average, and lake Ontario is already 5C above average temperature.

Do you understand that "weather" does not cause a change that massive?

It is anticipated that the arctic will be essentially ice free in summer before 2030.


Linear extrapolation of piomass minimum volume actually suggests this will happen by August or September 2022.

Exponential extrapolation suggests some time between August or September 2017 to 2019.

In recent years, most of the loss of volume has been coming from reductions in thickness, as area only decreases about 40k to 50k square km per year.

However, in about 2 or 3 years thickness will become so low that volume and area will be almost linearly tied together...and area will drop rapidly...
Lurker2358
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 16, 2012
Density is a bulk property that has no meaning when a solute is dissolved in a solvent on the atomic or molecular scale.

"Why the heck do you think a hydrogen or helium balloon rises out of sight until it pops?" - Lurker

Hydrogen atoms do not float to the upper atmosphere and vanish.
You are hallucinating.


I never said it vanished. You're arguing against a strawman.

It most certainly does float to the top of the atmosphere, and can be stripped away by ionizing radiation.

"The outermost layer of Earth's atmosphere extends from the exobase upward. It is mainly composed of hydrogen and helium." - Wiki.

You can read teh whole article, thanks, you'll learn something.

Also, you can even test this in a container if you have the equipment.

Light gases such as methane and hydrogen will rise to the top of a container full of air. in fact, you'll find nearly 90% of the methane in the top 10% of the container...
NotParker
1 / 5 (8) Apr 16, 2012
-19C in Alert today. Not much melting going on.

http://www.weathe...c_e.html

-18C in Eureka

http://www.weathe...c_e.html

-29C at the Greenland Summit Weather Station

http://www.wunder...416.html
NotParker
1.5 / 5 (17) Apr 16, 2012

Many of the lakes in the U.S. and Canada are experiencing completely melting 3 to 7 weeks ahead of normal this year.


44F Lake Erie on April 16

http://www.erh.no...sApr.php

2F warmer than 1955 and 1998.

In 1998 it took all the way to April 18th to hit 44F.

In 1938 it took all the way to April 21st to hit 44.

And do remember, UHI has been warming the Great Lakes for decades.

The warmest April temperature for Erie was in 1938. It hit 50.

rikvanriel
2.8 / 5 (9) Apr 16, 2012
Mistakes happen, even with IPCC procedures. In this case a decimal point was inadvertently lost and 350 became 35.

It is not an unreasonable find given the reports size of several thousand pages.


Mistakes happen, that is not unreasonable.

What is unreasonable is that they do not get corrected when pointed out.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.6 / 5 (41) Apr 16, 2012
Average april temp in alert is -24

"-19C in Alert today." - Parker Tard

Average April temp in eureka is -27.4

-18C in Eureka

Poor ParkerTard. Will he ever take steps to combat those hallucinations he's having?
NotParker
1.8 / 5 (16) Apr 16, 2012
Mistakes happen, even with IPCC procedures. In this case a decimal point was inadvertently lost and 350 became 35.


"The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research."

http://wattsupwit...-makers/
Vendicar_Decarian
0.5 / 5 (42) Apr 16, 2012
Scientific publicans usually do that by printing a correction in the next publication.

The IPCC Publishes every 4 or 5 years.

So I'm not sure what you are filling your diaper over.

"What is unreasonable is that they do not get corrected" - RikyTard
NotParker
1.3 / 5 (15) Apr 16, 2012
Average april temp in alert is -24


Sounds right. Only 2 days this month were warmer than -19.

-25.1 was the average for the month so far.

http://www.climat...eframe=2

The point is, the Arctic is not melting today. Too cold.

Way too cold.
MikPetter
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 16, 2012
Saudi Arabias oil revenues will reach $324 billion this year, a sharp increase from the $153 billion in 2010 income.
The International Monetary Fund, which released the estimate in a recent report, said the increase is due largely to rising oil prices. The price of a barrel of oil has been hovering around $100 for several months.
The IMF is forecasting that the cumulative oil revenue for members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) will exceed $1 trillion this year.
Oysteroid
1.8 / 5 (15) Apr 17, 2012
Mistakes happen, even with IPCC procedures. In this case a decimal point was inadvertently lost and 350 became 35.

It is not an unreasonable find given the reports size of several thousand pages.


Especially when they result in multi-billion financing to fix the non-existent issues which never existed beyond those alleged "mistakes".

The billions of $$$ appropriated for those mistakes were never refunded. How come?
Oysteroid
2 / 5 (16) Apr 17, 2012
And for some people here who pretend to follow scientific principles:

Do you realise that calling your opponents a "tard" or any other insulting name automatically disqualifies you from any other discussion? You are now a non-entity as far as any scientific discussion is concerned.

There. Chew on it.
Oysteroid
1.6 / 5 (13) Apr 17, 2012
And how do you explain away the code file in the IPCC computer models called "fudge" which contains hard-coded numbers "adjusting" the factual temperature reading down at the beginning of the time period and up at the end of it? How do you explain the obvious commenting there allowing to switch those adjustments on or off to get whatever results you like? If that's not an intentional fake, I don't know what is. No wonder they resisted requests for raw data made under British Official Information Act until the ridiculously short liability period of six months had expired.

And, even if you are really generous and allow for a mistake of an order of magnitude...what trust do you have for other predictions in the same report? Are they off by 300 years too?
kaasinees
Apr 17, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Oysteroid
1.6 / 5 (13) Apr 17, 2012
Isn't it incredible how (they say) they miss the target by 315 year in a peer-reviewed report presented at the highest level as grounds for some very seriois funding and, when caught at it, dismiss it as a "decimal point"?

Hmm, let me guess, in a couple years they will discover they misplaced that decimal dot again and, what they really meant, was the year 23550. The farther away into the future the better of course. No one will survive tnat long to rub their faces in that "mistake".
Oysteroid
1.9 / 5 (14) Apr 17, 2012
@kaas: The AGW fakers are always at it. Pity (for them) most people have woken up and don't buy their lies anymore.

And btw, as I noted above, you are now automatically disqualified from any further discussion on anything reasonable. If you want a name-calling slagging match - be my guest. Just about what all of climatolgy amounts to anyway.
kaasinees
1.8 / 5 (13) Apr 17, 2012
@kaas: The AGW fakers are always at it. Pity (for them) most people have woken up and don't buy their lies anymore.

Yeah right, dozens of nations and dozen of thousands scientists are lying.

Douchebag.
NotParker
2.1 / 5 (15) Apr 17, 2012

Yeah right, dozens of nations and dozen of thousands scientists are lying.

Douchebag.


People lie because their is money it. AGW is one of the most lucrative scams every concocted.

The LIA was the coldest period in 10,000 years and lucky for us, natural cycles have warmed the earth a miniscule amount since then.

Most of the warming started well before CO2 would have had any effect.

NotParker
2.1 / 5 (14) Apr 17, 2012

Yeah right, dozens of nations and dozen of thousands scientists are lying.

Douchebag.


Yes. Even in the medical field.

"Dr. Casadevall, now editor in chief of the journal mBio, said he feared that science had turned into a winner-take-all game with perverse incentives that lead scientists to cut corners and, in some cases, commit acts of misconduct."

http://www.nytime...tml?_r=1
MikPetter
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 17, 2012
huh "AGW is one of the most lucrative scams"??? Science dollars and doctoral research grants are chicken feed. The real dollars are in extracting and selling fossil fuel and releasing them to the atmosphere.. comment reprise"Saudi Arabias oil revenues will reach $324 billion this year, a sharp increase from the $153 billion in 2010 income.
The International Monetary Fund, which released the estimate in a recent report, said the increase is due largely to rising oil prices. The price of a barrel of oil has been hovering around $100 for several months.
The IMF is forecasting that the cumulative oil revenue for members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) will exceed $1 trillion this year."
Oysteroid
1.9 / 5 (13) Apr 17, 2012
The Green business is the most lucrative scam recently. Remember that $1bil federal subsidy paid to the failed solar panel "manufacturer"? Do you seriously expect to see any of it back?

Same goes for wind farms. ALL of them sucked up tons and tons of taxpayer money and either are gone already or teetering in the brink sucking up some more before they go.

Don't you find it funny that both fossil fuel and nuclear power pay heaps and heaps of money to subside the loss-making green fakes...and still beat them hands down? Why? Easy - the green alternatives just don't work. Can't. Ever.
NotParker
2.2 / 5 (13) Apr 17, 2012
AGW is one of the most lucrative scams


The next stage of the big green scam. Take all your money. Every bit.

"The total bill for WWS comes to around $225 trillion over the next 20 years. That is nearly the entire output of the world's largest economy every year for two decades."

"One scenario for powering the world with a WWS system includes 3.8 million 5 MW wind turbines (supplying 50% of projected total global power demand in 2030), 49,000 300 MW CSP power plants (supplying 20% of demand), 40,000 solar PV power plants (14%), 1.7 3 kW rooftop PV systems (6%), 5350 100 MW geothermal power plants (4%), 900 1300 MW hydroelectric power plants, of which 70% are already in place (4%),720,000 0.75 MW wave devices (1%), and 490,000 1 MW tidal turbines (1%)."

http://thegwpf.or...wer.html

Vendicar_Decarian
0.6 / 5 (41) Apr 18, 2012
Which makes the temperature you imply is cold, actually 5'C warmer than usual.

"Sounds right. Only 2 days this month were warmer than -19.

-25.1 was the average for the month so far." - ParkerTard

Poor ParkerTard. Your chronic misrepresentations are constantly exposed as the lies they are.

Vendicar_Decarian
0.6 / 5 (41) Apr 18, 2012
I doubt if ParkerTard's mental illness has the potential of being cured.

"The next stage of the big green scam. Take all your money. Every bit." - ParkerTard

"The total bill for WWS comes to around $225 trillion over the next 20 years." - ParkerTard

Meanwhile converting the global economy to Nuclear Power at U.S. levels of energy waste will cost 3600 trillion over the next 50 years and another 3600 trillion every 50 years after that.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.6 / 5 (41) Apr 18, 2012
Sorry Tard Boy, but no such payment was ever made.

"Remember that $1bil federal subsidy paid to the failed solar panel "manufacturer"?" - OysTard

You are confusing a loan guarantee with a government grant.

Your Conservative Handlers manipulated you into making such a mistake.

Do you intend to live the rest of your life as a Patsy?
Vendicar_Decarian
0.6 / 5 (41) Apr 18, 2012
If you can not live in an environmentally sustainable manner then you will die due to your environmentally unsustainable manners.

"the green alternatives just don't work. Can't. Ever." - OysTard
Vendicar_Decarian
0.6 / 5 (40) Apr 18, 2012
Isn't it sad how Capitalism destroys everything it touches?

It reminds me of George Bush and the Republican Party in that respect.

"Dr. Casadevall, now editor in chief of the journal mBio, said he feared that science had turned into a winner-take-all game" - ParkerTard
Vendicar_Decarian
0.6 / 5 (41) Apr 18, 2012
Yet last week you claimed that the earth had been warming for the last 12,000 years.

Make up your mind Tard Boy. Your lies are contradicting each other.

"The LIA was the coldest period in 10,000 years and lucky for us," - ParekerTard
Vendicar_Decarian
0.5 / 5 (41) Apr 18, 2012
Whining Tards always say that. Intellectual inferiors such as yourself never learn because you are incapable of accepting the fact that you are stone cold stupid.

"Do you realise that calling your opponents a "tard" or any other insulting name automatically disqualifies you from any other discussion?" - OysTard
Vendicar_Decarian
0.5 / 5 (40) Apr 18, 2012
I explain it as another Tard Boy lie, told by someone who doesn't have the slightest clue what he is jabbering about, and who doesn't know the difference between an IPCC "model" and a Temperature chronology produced by a British University.

It is astonishing that you have the mental capacity to feed yourself OysTard.

"And how do you explain away the code file in the IPCC computer models called "fudge" which contains hard-coded numbers "adjusting" the factual temperature reading down at the beginning of the time period and up at the end of it?" - OysTard
MandoZink
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2012
From NotParker:
"In Montanas Glacier National Park, in Colorados Front Range, in Wyomings Grand Tetons, the glaciers and snowfields are actually gaining volume."

So this is from a website that thinks an Ice Age is imminent?
My last trip to Glacier National Park was a bit depressing. I learned I was seeing the last of some of the great glaciers that were there. The park was monitoring, and lamenting the rapid disappearance of these beauties.

On the other hand, this is from the National Center for Atmospheric Research last year:
"The results predict enhanced snowfall on the order of 1025% in the Colorado headwaters region due to the availability of more moisture in the atmosphere. Higher elevations experience increased snowfall, according to the study, with lower elevations experiencing enhanced melting; changes in peak snow mass are near zero due to these compensating effects. Total wintertime runoff is above current levels, showing evidence of earlier melting of the snowpack."

MandoZink
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 18, 2012
My comment above seems to have lost a hyphen. that was meant to say "10 to 25%", NOT "1025%".
I was crushed to find I missed the former magnificence of the shrinking glaciers I hiked to, and that some of them will simply be gone when I get back to Montana.
Friends of mine in Colorado who are avid skiers have been happy that the warming atmosphere has kept giving them decent snowfalls, but they say the snow is then disappearing earlier, shortening the ski season. They see the effects of warming on their lifestyle.
Oysteroid
1.6 / 5 (13) Apr 18, 2012
Don't feed the trolls guys.

Vendi-whatever (under all his aliases) is on ignore now.
Grizzled
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 18, 2012
Have anyone else noticed that VD abbreviation usually stands for something else?

Telling, isn't it?
NotParker
1.8 / 5 (16) Apr 18, 2012

On the other hand, this is from the National Center for Atmospheric Research last year...


When snowfall went way up, AGW cultists rushed out papers "proving" warming causes colder snowier weather ...instead of drought and heat which is what they were saying until the PDO changed from warm to cold.

No wait ... NOAA means magic dust causes more snow.

"In a weird twist on the butterfly effect, evidence is that Asian dust storms can mean more snow in the Sierra"

http://blogs.kqed...ra-snow/

Vendicar_Decarian
0.7 / 5 (43) Apr 18, 2012
All statistics show that creating a Liberal society is the best way to limit your exposure to VD.

"Have anyone else noticed that VD abbreviation usually stands for something else?" - Grizzled
Vendicar_Decarian
0.8 / 5 (43) Apr 18, 2012
No they didn't.

"When snowfall went way up, AGW cultists rushed out papers "proving" warming causes colder snowier weather" - ParkerTard

You have a deep mental impairment ParkerTard. Get psychiatric help.

Meanwhile, global humidity is up 4% due to increased global temperatures.

http://www.youtub...iBHAivmw
MandoZink
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2012
When snowfall went way up, AGW cultists rushed out papers "proving" warming causes colder snowier weather

I first read about the phenomenon of atmospheric moisture and snow back in the seventies. That weather research wasn't related to the issue of global warming then - it was general weather science at the time.
Furthermore, it does NOT cause "colder snowier weather". A warmer atmosphere holding more moisture results in heavier snow events just past the cold air boundary. It does NOT cause colder weather. It creates the potential for more, and heavier, snow events.
As you reach colder air further north, it is less likely to snow due to drier air(less moisture capacity). The earlier onset of winter means their snow season starts earlier and ends later. THAT is why a lot of snow is on the ground up north. Alaskans know this.
It is a really bad argument to insist this was invented by "AGW cultists". Google "snow science" and look it up. This phenomenon was known long ago!
Vendicar_Decarian
0.6 / 5 (40) Apr 18, 2012
HadCrut4 is now available and it has gone a long way in removing the polar anti-bias from the HadCrut3 dataset.

The Blue line represents the biased HadCrut3 dataset and the green line shows the new HadCrut4 analysis.

Warming .2'C over the last 15 years.

http://www.woodfo...11/trend
Oysteroid
1.6 / 5 (14) Apr 19, 2012
First of all, I 'd like to point out that "98% of climate scientists" is NOT a consensus. Check what the word means. That's even if we accept the (very doubtful) proposition that number is true.

But more interesting still: are any AGW proponents on this forum old enough to remember back to the 1970s? Remember the coming Next Ice Age (coming soon to your neighbourhood) and extreme emergency measueres we had to take to combat it?

That was also a "consensus" back then although I can't remember any %% numbers quoted.

But the proposals ranged from the rather mild "burn more fuel" to the totally attrocious "let's cover Greenland in soot to decrease the albedo".

Good thing none of those materialised. Given my age today, I probably won't live long enough to see the next swing of fancy. But, if you are around when the next wave of alarmists starts screeming about the Next Ice Age - remind them of this discussion.

Not that they will take any note of course :-)
MandoZink
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 19, 2012
A consensus is basically defined as a "general or widespread agreement". I would say that 98% is definitely a consensus. If 98% of the weathermen called for thunderstorms, I guess you wouldn't take an umbrella.

Also, I don't recall an ice age being implied as imminent in the 70's. I do recall people postulating one climate direction or another, until the science began to show what was obviously going on. I have been into gardening before the 70's and have seen the changes in blooming dates and northern latitude limits constantly creeping up.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.7 / 5 (43) Apr 19, 2012
Definition of CONSENSUS

1a : general agreement
: unanimity (the consensus of their opinion, based on reports, from the border John Hersey)

b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned (the consensus was to go ahead)

2: group solidarity in sentiment and belief
Merriam Webster

"First of all, I 'd like to point out that "98% of climate scientists" is NOT a consensus. Check what the word means." - OysterTard

Just did, and apparently it is.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.6 / 5 (42) Apr 19, 2012
I am old enough to remember that, and old enough to remember that there were no scientists making such a claim.

"Remember the coming Next Ice Age (coming soon to your neighbourhood) and extreme emergency measueres we had to take to combat it?" - OysterTard

What 1970s science said about global cooling

http://www.skepti...ing.html

Vendicar_Decarian
0.7 / 5 (42) Apr 19, 2012
Yup, the consensus back then was that the observed cooling was a result of pollution and the expected trend of warming would appear above the climate noise sometime in the 1980's.

Even in popular culture, such as the movie "The Omega Man", a warming earth was included by the author because it was the science of the day.

"That was also a "consensus" back then although I can't remember any %% numbers quoted." - OysterTard

http://www.youtub...pp_video

The fact that the globe would warm with increasing CO2 was known more than 120 years ago. Hand calculations done at the time produced warming estimates that were almost identical to today's most complex computer models.

The science is very robust and long settled.

NotParker
1.8 / 5 (16) Apr 19, 2012
consensus


Arctic Ice Area ABOVE normal!!!

The end of the world is cancelled!

http://arctic-roo...area.png
NotParker
1.5 / 5 (15) Apr 19, 2012
HadCrut4 is now available and it has gone a long way in removing the polar anti-bias from the HadCrut3 dataset.


What you mean is they fabricated HADCRUT4 to prove the arctic is warming just when ice area has exceeded normal?

What a joke.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.6 / 5 (41) Apr 19, 2012
Arctic sea ice extent...

http://www.skepti...2010.gif

Ice volume way below normal. North pole projected to be ice free in summer sometime around 2030.

Arctic ice volume.

http://www.skepti...lume.gif

Poor ParkerTard/UbvonTard. Lying is all he has left.
NotParker
1.5 / 5 (15) Apr 19, 2012
Arctic sea ice extent...


Normal. Perfectly normal.

http://arctic-roo..._ext.png
MandoZink
5 / 5 (2) Apr 19, 2012
@NotParker - Thanks for the that last graph. I had wondered about the unusual tightening of the Arctic Circulation this winter, which concentrated cold air far to the north. As we broke a record number of high temperature records in the U.S. this winter, something HAD to be happening where the cold was amassed.

As that graph shows(and I do believe it), with the unusual imbalance of the arctic oscillation this winter, the ice managed to grow all the way to within the old normal standard deviation of coverage area. That much excessive warm air in our lower latitudes pretty much had to compensate somewhere.

So, the arctic ice hit the old normal range, balancing out the unprecedented heat south of there. Unfortunately, the overall average is still a warming trend.

I really did like the graph. I appreciate knowing more about what's happening. Being a gardener in touch with other gardeners for decades, you absolutely notice the changes occurring in growing zones and planting times.
NotParker
1.6 / 5 (14) Apr 19, 2012
Unfortunately, the overall average is still a warming trend.


Not globally. There is a southern hemisphere and the ice trend is up.

And it hasn't dipped below -1 million since 2002, compared to 1980 when it a;most hit -1.5 million.

http://arctic.atm...ctic.png

Oysteroid
1.3 / 5 (13) Apr 19, 2012
Definition of CONSENSUS

1a : general agreement
: unanimity (the consensus of their opinion, based on reports, from the border John Hersey)

b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned (the consensus was to go ahead)

2: group solidarity in sentiment and belief
Merriam

Just did, and apparently it is.


98% = unanimity?!?

Well, well. What else would you expect of the climate "scientists"? That's how their "statistics" work.

And if you mean the other meaning of belief held by a group - just admit that AGW is nothing more than another [pseudo]-religious cult.

Learn the meaning of the big words you use. Quite cleary primitive insult is the best you can manage.
Howhot
3.5 / 5 (6) Apr 19, 2012
Everyone knows AGW is real and global warming is causing some unusual weather. 100% of the scientists I know (and it quite a few) treat AGW as matter of fact, because it is fact. You can't argue with facts. Facts are facts.

Problem is the facts don't wish us well in the future. The whole world need to stop burning fossil fuels. That is the cure. It's like quit smoking and your health will improve (unless your over on the back side of the health curve). In science, the fact that the Himalayan still have glaciers is just a statistical OUTLIAR!
MandoZink
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 19, 2012
I do not quite comprehend the phenomenon of "conspiracy assumption" when faced with data contrary to one's beliefs. I took programming classes in the early 80's, when memory was at a premium and ALL systems and controllers ignored the century digits, using only a two-digit year designation. We KNEW this was going to be a problem when Year-2000 came around, but we were told it probably would be fixed by then.

As 2000 approached and it was apparent no one had addressed the problem, us early programmers knew we had a potential crises brewing if critical systems were left unchecked. I was astonished to see the Y2K issue being called a conspiracy. It sure as hell was not! Yet there was a general unwillingness to believe the facts, and a greater willingness to assume a conspiracy.

I do not understand where that comes from. I try to learn the truth, no matter how unpleasant. I would rather be set right than remain obstinately stupid.

No offense if none is deserved here.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.5 / 5 (40) Apr 19, 2012
Ya, it is all a conspiracy among the worlds scientists to make you look dumber than rock.

"What you mean is they fabricated HADCRUT4 to prove the arctic is warming" - ParkerTard

Poor Mentally Ill Parkertard/UbVonTard
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (39) Apr 19, 2012
There is nothing to understand. It is nothing more than mental illness.

"I do not quite comprehend the phenomenon of "conspiracy assumption" when faced with data contrary to one's beliefs." - Mando

As UbVonTard, (ParkerTard's alter-ego), he has proclaimed that he intends to continue to lie about the reality of Global warming as long as he lives.

Vendicar_Decarian
0.5 / 5 (40) Apr 20, 2012
Odd that you think the Miriam Webster is now part of your fabricated (global warming "cult"), just because it's definition of "consensus" does not mesh with your Conservative political desire for there to be none.

Reality doesn't respect your demands that it conform to your political expectations, and I don't respect you either.

"And if you mean the other meaning of belief held by a group - just admit that AGW is nothing more than another [pseudo]-religious cult." - OysterTard
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (39) Apr 20, 2012
Ice extent is up marginally in the south, although ice volume is decreasing just as it is in the north. Climate models show this to be expected in the south, but not for much longer.

http://arctic.atm...rend.jpg

The global trend is clearly downward.

"There is a southern hemisphere and the ice trend is up." - ParkerTard
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (39) Apr 20, 2012
If you consider a near continuous deficit of ice normal.

"Normal. Perfectly normal." - ParkerTard

http://arctic.atm...ctic.png

Northern Sea Ice now = 103,000 miles lower than normal.

http://www.skepti...2010.gif

Ice volume way below normal. North pole projected to be ice free in summer sometime around 2030.

Arctic ice volume.

http://www.skepti...lume.gif

Poor ParkerTard/UbvonTard. Lying is all he has left.
A2G
1.4 / 5 (11) Apr 20, 2012
I enjoy this website and opposing opinions and beliefs have a place in science even if they are not what I think is correct. Remember that the consensus of the world's scientists once thought the world was flat.

Was has no place in science discussions is personal insults.

That is childish.

I too have reported VD to the mod.

Cheers to all those you enjoy intelligent discussions without the childish babble..It is like trying to have a discussion with a crying baby in the room.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.5 / 5 (39) Apr 20, 2012
No it didn't.

"Remember that the consensus of the world's scientists once thought the world was flat." - A2G

The world has always been perceived as a sphere.

You are regurgitating old wives tales.
ACCKKII
3 / 5 (4) Apr 20, 2012
To prevent further useless debate:
co2 like any other gas is able to climb to any height. It Depends on season and weather conditions either centralized or distributed co2 spots.
Co2 concentration is a relative thing. co2 is always associated with the air. So there is never a pure co2 in the atmosphere anywhere with %100 concentration.
On equal terms, atmospheric layers that have more co2 are directed towards the lower layers with less co2 upward move. Himalayan glaciers are not the same situation with glaciers elsewhere. Who can claim the Himalayan climate with other parts of the world are identical. In fact, the Himalayan glaciers are the last glaciers affected by global warming phenomenon.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (37) Apr 20, 2012
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein

"I too have reported VD to the mod." - A2G
Oysteroid
1 / 5 (4) Apr 20, 2012

Cheers to all those you enjoy intelligent discussions without the childish babble..It is like trying to have a discussion with a crying baby in the room.


Not just crying, more like in a hysterical tantrams. If anyone dares to disagree - scream till his face goes purple.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (39) Apr 20, 2012
There is a difference between disagreement and criminal stupidity.

Once your testicles drop you might figure out the difference.

"If anyone dares to disagree - scream till his face goes purple." - BlueOysterTard
ACCKKII
1 / 5 (2) Apr 20, 2012
I enjoy this website and opposing opinions and beliefs have a place in science even if they are not what I think is correct. Remember that the consensus of the world's scientists once thought the world was flat.

Was has no place in science discussions is personal insults.

That is childish.

I too have reported VD to the mod.

Cheers to all those you enjoy intelligent discussions without the childish babble..It is like trying to have a discussion with a crying baby in the room.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing". Edmund Burke.
OBJECTION on childish behaviors.
Your comment is constructive.
ACCKKII
1.2 / 5 (5) Apr 20, 2012
There are other factors in climate change and this is not limited to CO2.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (38) Apr 20, 2012
Denialism is pure evil.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing". Edmund Burke.

ACCKKII
1 / 5 (4) Apr 20, 2012
http://en.wikiped.../Aerosol

There are other factors in climate change and this is not limited to CO2.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (37) Apr 20, 2012
Why do you feel a need to state the obvious?

Are you feeling particularly pointless this morning?

"There are other factors in climate change and this is not limited to CO2." - AckKack
ACCKKII
1 / 5 (4) Apr 20, 2012
Denialism is pure evil.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing". Edmund Burke.


Please read this, you know it very well I hope you do VD the Troll:
http://news.yahoo...014.html

ACCKKII
1 / 5 (4) Apr 20, 2012
VD The Troll,
it's for you.
It calculated loss of four billion tonnes a year, compared with previous estimates of up to 50 billion.

It said past estimates were based on runoff from lower-altitude glaciers -- which are worse hit by warming than higher-altitude ones -- and on drainage figures from the vast plains south of the Himalayas.

Much of this drainage came in fact from water that had been pumped from underground aquifers on the plains, not from meltwater from the mountains, the study said.

http://www.telegr...ing.html
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (37) Apr 20, 2012
From your own reference....

"In February, a US-led study published in Nature found that ice loss from the Himalayas was significant but had been badly over-estimated.

It calculated loss of four billion tonnes a year, compared with previous estimates of up to 50 billion."

"Please read this, you know it very well I hope you do VD the Troll:
http://news.yahoo...014.html" - AcckiTobaccie

Comprehension comes from reading everything, not just that which confirms your political ideology or personal wishes.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.5 / 5 (38) Apr 20, 2012
A nice synopsis of the reality of the situation.

http://www.youtub...A0iZ_xeA

"It calculated loss of four billion tonnes a year, compared with previous estimates of up to 50 billion." - AcckiTobacci

Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (37) Apr 20, 2012
This is also a good watch...

http://www.youtub...IWD4tAHc
ACCKKII
1 / 5 (4) Apr 20, 2012
A nice synopsis of the reality of the situation.

http://www.youtub...A0iZ_xeA

"It calculated loss of four billion tonnes a year, compared with previous estimates of up to 50 billion." - AcckiTobacci


VD the Troll,
I referred to the facts only. Unfortunately we have the same opinion in this case.

NotParker
1 / 5 (6) Apr 20, 2012

VD the Troll,


Arctic Ice Area above Normal

http://arctic-roo...area.png

Antarctic Ice 669,000 sq km above normal

http://arctic.atm...ctic.png
ACCKKII
1 / 5 (5) Apr 20, 2012

VD the Troll,


Arctic Ice Area above Normal

http://arctic-roo...area.png


"Glaciers in parts of the greater Himalayas are growing despite the worldwide trend of ice melting due to warmer temperatures, a study has found. "

http://www.telegr...ing.html
ACCKKII
1 / 5 (5) Apr 20, 2012
About CO2

no comment...

http://www.youtub...z79hVyos

Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (37) Apr 20, 2012
TV weatherman falsely claims to be a scientist. He isn't even a meteorologist.

http://www.youtub...pp_video

"About CO2" - AckkiTobakki
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (37) Apr 20, 2012
http://www.youtub...pp_video

Ahahahahaha Whakie Tobakkie repeats his earlier error.

"Glaciers in parts of the greater Himalayas are growing despite the worldwide trend of ice melting due to warmer temperatures, a study has found. " - AccKKiTobakki
NotParker
1 / 5 (5) Apr 20, 2012

The Himalayas are very tall mountain ranges so their peaks are above as much as half of the troposphere. This makes tall mountains less vulnerable to the greenhouse effect.


So any melting would have nothing to do with CO2?
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (37) Apr 20, 2012
More denialist lies exposed.

http://www.youtub...e=relmfu
NotParker
1 / 5 (5) Apr 20, 2012
Easy for anyone to check.

http://arctic.atm...rend.jpg


Go ahead. Look. The red line is above 0. Above normal.

Antarctic Ice has been growing for 30 years. Go ahead. Look for yourself.

http://arctic.atm...ctic.png

Vendicar_Decarian
0.5 / 5 (38) Apr 20, 2012
Correct.

"http://www.youtub...pp_video

The Himalayas are very tall mountain ranges so their peaks are above as much as half of the troposphere. This makes tall mountains less vulnerable to the greenhouse effect." - ParkerTard

http://www.youtub...=related
MandoZink
1 / 5 (3) Apr 20, 2012
People who don't understand specialties can always find someone with some kind of degree who backs up what they would like to believe. The worst group of "doctored" technologists are engineers. I have worked with engineers all of my life. They are the most uninformed group of people outside of their field that I have ever met. My last boss, and his colleagues, adamantly refused to look at facts that they already had an opinion about.

The sea ice at the poles and the Himalayan glaciers are horribly deceptive if that is all you know about melting. The climate is changing such that - as most areas get warmer, some areas are staying cold. Considering the graph plots, the polar ice seems to have managed to return to historic "normals" under this scenario.

In spite of the immediate polar ice and a few other anomalies, the rest of the world's ice is melting at an exceptional rate. Greenland's ice melt is truly impressive.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.5 / 5 (38) Apr 21, 2012
How ParkerTard/UbvonTard lie

https://docs.goog...QUE/edit
ACCKKII
1 / 5 (5) Apr 21, 2012
TV weatherman falsely claims to be a scientist. He isn't even a meteorologist.


VD The Troll CHATTY,
You may assume him as a repeater. You lose nothing.
NotParker
1 / 5 (5) Apr 21, 2012

The Himalayas are very tall mountain ranges so their peaks are above as much as half of the troposphere. This makes tall mountains less vulnerable to the greenhouse effect.


So any melting would have nothing to do with CO2?

NotParker
1 / 5 (6) Apr 21, 2012
In spite of the immediate polar ice and a few other anomalies, the rest of the world's ice is melting at an exceptional rate. Greenland's ice melt is truly impressive.


If Greenland was actually melting, it might show up in the tide gauge data for sea level. Sea Level rise is decelerating, not accelerating.

ACCKKII
1 / 5 (6) Apr 21, 2012
TV weatherman falsely claims to be a scientist. He isn't even a meteorologist.

http://www.youtub...pp_video

"About CO2" - AckkiTobakki

VD The Troll CHATTY,

Really how smart you are!!

You asked for it,
so once again ...take your new gift ..."the scientist"
"DARRA" ~ "data"