Simulation explains why Asian glaciers are not melting

October 13, 2014 by Bob Yirka report
Credit: Wikipedia

A team of researchers in the U.S. has built a model that appears to explain the Karakoram anomaly—where unlike other parts of the world, its mountainous glaciers are not melting. In their paper published in the journal Nature Geoscience, the team explains the factors that went into their model and why their simulation appears to explain the real world phenomenon.

As most everyone knows by now, the planet is warming, and because of that, across the globe are melting, with many expected to disappear over the next century, or sooner. One exception, however, is the Karakoram, a mountain chain that runs along the borders of China, India, and Pakistan—it's technically part of the Himalaya chain. There, scientists have discovered that not only are the glaciers not melting, they appear to be growing, continually defying predictions.

To find out why glaciers in that part of the world are thriving despite a rise in , the researchers gathered weather data dating back to 1861 on three major parts of the Himalaya chain—the southeast portion, the central portion and the Karakoram. The amount of data allowed them to create a much finer map of the area than prior efforts—down to an area of just 19 square miles.

After imputing the data and running the simulations—representing weather patterns right up to 2100—the researchers found that the central and southeast part of the chain received most of its moisture from the annual monsoons. The Karakoram, in contrast, got most of its precipitation in the winter, which of course meant more snow. The team notes that their model shows that the total amount of precipitation along most of the chain is increasing as the planet heats up, during the summer months. In the Karakoram, on the other hand, there is less snowfall in the summer, but more in the winter—thus the continued growing of the glaciers. Their model suggests that the glaciers are likely to continue to persist in that part of the world, right on up to 2100—after that, it doesn't appear likely—not if global warming continues at its current pace.

Explore further: No ice loss seen in major Himalayan glaciers: scientists

More information: Nature Geoscience (2014) DOI: 10.1038/ngeo2269

Related Stories

New study maps Himalayan glacier behaviour

August 24, 2012

Glaciers are one of the largest reservoirs of freshwater on our planet, and their melting or growing is one of the best indicators of climate change. However, knowledge of glacier change has been hampered by lack of data, ...

Recommended for you

New Amazon threat? Deforestation from mining

October 18, 2017

Sprawling mining operations in Brazil are destroying much more of the iconic Amazon forest than previously thought, says the first comprehensive study of mining deforestation in the world's largest tropical rainforest.

Scientists determine source of world's largest mud eruption

October 17, 2017

On May 29, 2006, mud started erupting from several sites on the Indonesian island of Java. Boiling mud, water, rocks and gas poured from newly-created vents in the ground, burying entire towns and compelling many Indonesians ...

51 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (20) Oct 13, 2014
Great to see these anomalies & how they are addressed & in conjunction with fact there is more atmospheric water vapour driven by increased CO2 & its thermal re-radiation properties. It makes perfect sense the higher altitude & relatively isolated cold areas will accumulate water and of course the data in that region is essential to obtain for independent assessment.

It should be understand that ice has interesting insulating properties & one wonders how models handle this in relation to surface wind velocity & humidity.

Have been working on a project to extract water from air using a simple non electronic sustainable process & the concept of humidity in relation to dew-point re wind & temperature makes for some interesting study & raises interesting discontinuities which could be exploited to provide cheap clean water to those in arid regions that desperately need to have suffering alleviated.

Jump in anytime verkle & explain Y your god punishes innocents ?
plaasjaapie
1.9 / 5 (23) Oct 13, 2014
"Their model suggests that the glaciers are likely to continue to persist in that part of the world, right on up to 2100—after that, it doesn't appear likely—not if global warming continues at its current pace."

What "current pace"?
Jim4321
2.2 / 5 (23) Oct 13, 2014
"As most everyone knows by now, the planet is warming, and because of that, glaciers across the globe are melting, with many expected to disappear over the next century, or sooner. "

This is in a supposedly scientific report. How about giving us a time frame? What has happened to the global average temperature in the last fifteen years or so? Arguing from "everybody knows" is stupid even for a person in political science or ecology -- much less a scientist.
Mike_Massen
3.3 / 5 (21) Oct 13, 2014
Jim4321 muttered, inconsolable confusion with
This is in a supposedly scientific report. How about giving us a time frame? What has happened to the global average temperature in the last fifteen years or so?
(snipped rubbish).

Globe has to include water/ice, atmospheric temps which account for 1000 times less specific heat than oceans are rising slower than than before approx 15-18 years but, still rising:-
http://www.woodfo...rg/notes

The point is with oceans 1000x or even more greater heat capacity than water it is Obvious the upper oceans heat rise must be included as the 'globe' or its not the globe - duh !

Climate science is not weather reporting, demanding time frames is 'not smart', well it might be smart if education in physics of heat was part & parcel of all people's mandatory high school experience.

Eg. How melting ice has heat capacity 150x ice & 75 times water. Ice is also part of the globe...

Eg2 Greenland's rise of ~3cm/year as it loses ice
LariAnn
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2014
The point is with oceans 1000x or even more greater heat capacity than water it is Obvious the upper oceans heat rise must be included as the 'globe' or its not the globe - duh !


@Mike_Massen, did you mean, "-greater heat capacity than air-" because oceans = water so there is no "1000x" comparison there.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (14) Oct 13, 2014
The point is with oceans 1000x or even more greater heat capacity than water it is Obvious the upper oceans heat rise must be included as the 'globe' or its not the globe - duh !


@Mike_Massen, did you mean, "-greater heat capacity than air-" because oceans = water so there is no "1000x" comparison there.

He meant that the mass of the oceans is 1000x greater than the atmosphere.
And actually then you need to include the SH of water, which is 4x that of air.
So the Oceans can store 4000x more solar energy than the atmosphere.
gkam
3.4 / 5 (20) Oct 13, 2014
Jim4321: " What has happened to the global average temperature in the last fifteen years or so?"
-------------------------------------------------

Look up the ten hottest years in all of history, and get back to us. Shall I do it for you?

Here is a good place: http://en.wikiped...e_record

http://www.ncdc.n.../2013/13
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (20) Oct 13, 2014
Why are all the AGW Cult's climate models such terrible failures?
Because they are based on the same al.gor.e.dumb.

AGW Cult "science" may be settled, but their stupidity is definitely unsettling.
DeliriousNeuron
1.3 / 5 (16) Oct 13, 2014
A simulation that appears to be correct? ROFLMAO!
gkam
3.2 / 5 (20) Oct 13, 2014
Deniers have already lost. Why do they continue to even complain?

Do you think they looked up the references?

verkle
Oct 13, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
gkam
3.5 / 5 (19) Oct 13, 2014
Hey, Verkle. How do you know? How many of them have you read? Be honest.

Instead of looking at models, look outside.
Vietvet
3.8 / 5 (17) Oct 13, 2014
@verkle

"Past simulations of climate have all failed."

No, your understanding of science has failed.
OZGuy
4.1 / 5 (14) Oct 13, 2014
Viet
If it isn't in verkles bible it cannot be happening... He is a creationist, not a scientific body in his body.
saposjoint
3.8 / 5 (10) Oct 13, 2014
Bone? Maybe a rib?
Steve 200mph Cruiz
4 / 5 (1) Oct 13, 2014
I wonder if the higher altitude helps as well.
If the atmosphere is thinner, the co2 and methane levels could be noticeably lower.
The atmosphere is only 62 miles thick, and because of gravity most of its mass is concentrated on sea level, the atmospheric pressure at the top of Everest is a third the pressure of sea level.
4.89 psi on the top of Everest
14.69 psi at sea level according to Wikipedia
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2014
Looks like the AGW Cult will have a lot of ice for that final batch of Kool-Aid.
http://www.ihatet...-warming
Porgie
1.8 / 5 (10) Oct 13, 2014
That fact that global temperatures have no gone up in 20 years might explain it also. And that the polar ice caps have expanded by 155,000 square miles in the 2013-2014 winter is another. Global warming is a desperate left wing dream.
Psilly_T
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 13, 2014
~~antigoracle~~ google how many glaciers are recorded on earth. I got estimates ranging from 130,000-200,000. 12 that are growing isn't big support for you're uhh "non cult" side. ~~~ just sayin'
Psilly_T
4 / 5 (8) Oct 13, 2014
@porgie huh funny i coulda sworn the polar caps would grow durring a winter. oh thats what u just said. Did u look up how much has melted this summer btw? :D
Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (16) Oct 14, 2014
antigoracle doesnt think
Why are all the AGW Cult's climate models such terrible failures?
its a local phenomena, the glacier is even smaller than the USA, doh !

antigoracle
AGW Cult "science" may be settled, but their stupidity is definitely unsettling.
What amazing hypnosis prevents you doing simple logic ?

DeliriousNeuron
A simulation that appears to be correct? ROFLMAO!
Its a very simple local region & its proven the air has more water, so duh, cold areas will precipitate out more snow & ice, simple logic, r u an antigoracle puppet, how can 2 people have the same failure of basic logic.

verkle
...Sounds like a lot of made up scenarios,
The facts of physics of humidity & dewpoint is not made up, its education.

Region at high altitude & below freezing, humid air passes over it, some of that water settles on the glacier - simple.

Sadly its only one glacier so far seen to have increased in mass.

Correction 3 people who cant understand logic !
Mike_Massen
4.2 / 5 (15) Oct 14, 2014
LariAnn quite correct
@Mike_Massen, did you mean, "-greater heat capacity than air-" ...
Indeed I did, & thanks runrig for the clarification.

I'm on lots of forums, typing whilst thinking ahead whilst being reminded I have to go out doesnt help.

Re the deniers; verkle, antigoricle, DeliriousNeuron. You have to wonder why they imagine:-

- GW means all areas get equally warmer
- They can understand without knowing humidty & dewpoint

For verkle, antigoricle, DeliriousNeuron
The good thing is, its very easy to set up an experiment to prove just why the glacier puts on mass, its primary school stuff.

Re the temps of the region in the article:-

- Note the humidity
- Cool a room down
- place mass of ice in bowl on a scale
- increase room humidity

Hypothesis is, ice will increase in mass but, as room warms then ice warms too, so:-
a. No more water on it depending on humidity
b. Ice starts to melt

Do the experiment yourself - easy !
MandoZink
5 / 5 (10) Oct 14, 2014
I originally read about this several years ago. Scientists had reported that among the circulation patterns being altered by climate change, there was increased warm, moist air being directed up and over local parts of the Himalayas. They stated that this would be an anomaly that would likely increase the snow cover and, unless further change occurred, would keep these local glaciers intact.

That discovery was a consolation to people at lower elevations who's lives depend on the runoff.
mooster75
4.6 / 5 (10) Oct 14, 2014
And that the polar ice caps have expanded by 155,000 square miles in the 2013-2014 winter is another. Global warming is a desperate left wing dream.

I think you're supposed to leave off the part about it happening during the winter. Otherwise, it becomes obvious that you're twisting the facts. Or, more likely, believed someone who was twisting the facts.
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (12) Oct 14, 2014
its a local phenomena, the glacier is even smaller than the USA, doh !

Uh huh. It's even smaller than that thing you call your brain.
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (13) Oct 14, 2014
antigoracle sadly proves yet again he has no science training & inability to craft logic
Uh huh. It's even smaller than that thing you call your brain.
Unlike your complaint about me antigoracle, you CAN increase knowledge, it takes is:-
- Discipline
- Enroling in a course, eg community college
- Eg in thermodynamics & heat
- Then you can move up to advanced stuff Eg. statistical mechanics

In attacks you focus on people's brains - wouldn't it be smarter to actually add to yours as I don't accept the view its impossible for you to learn - unless you are easily controlled & led by others :-(

Perhaps you & a small vocal minority are suffering a type of hypnosis. Here is something you can do to discover that potential privately.

"If you cannot make stepwise connection (on paper helps) between points a to b to c etc in a logical intellectual flow (which should not be emotional) then you have been hypnotised"

Take your time, be kind to yourself.
EnricM
5 / 5 (7) Oct 14, 2014
"Their model suggests that the glaciers are likely to continue to persist in that part of the world, right on up to 2100—after that, it doesn't appear likely—not if global warming continues at its current pace."

What "current pace"?

cur·rent
adjective \ˈkər-ənt, ˈkə-rənt\

: happening or existing now : belonging to or existing in the present time

: aware of what is happening in a particular area of activity

pace
noun \ˈpās\

: the speed at which someone or something moves

: the speed at which something happens

: a single step or the length of a single s

You are welcome
EnricM
5 / 5 (7) Oct 14, 2014
That fact that global temperatures have no gone up in 20 years might explain it also. And that the polar ice caps have expanded by 155,000 square miles in the 2013-2014 winter is another. Global warming is a desperate left wing dream.


What is a desperate left wing? Is it a wing dream that's desperate and located to the left of something?
EnricM
5 / 5 (9) Oct 14, 2014
Looks like the AGW Cult will have a lot of ice for that final batch of Kool-Aid.
http://www.ihatet...-warming


Let there be 11, Norway's glaciers seem not to have read your porn-site.. tehy even find stuff under them:
Oh, wait, in NZ they weren paying attention either:
http://www.stuff....ing-away
http://www.theloc...er-melts
Well, that makes 10
Oh, La-la La France:
http://www.bbc.co...16025568
Mon dieu!!! Ze 9!!

BTW, I'm European (I LIVE in Europe) and I haven't heard or SEEN that the glaciers are growing... maybe you want to come over here and explain it to he people who make a living of it. You may explain to them that they don't need snow cannons and you will also pay for they losses they are having for the lack of snow. It's just an illusion, don't worry ;)
Mike_Massen
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 15, 2014
antigoracle didnt know what he let slip with his fundamental belief
Looks like the AGW Cult will have a lot of ice for that final batch of Kool-Aid.
Aamzing antigoracle ! The underlying content in your post is 'final', so you have confirmed you intrinsically believe this will be the final chance we have (natural) ice !

This may well be true, sadly I am inclined to agree with you if we don't have some major nuclear disaster or a super-volcano raising cubic kilometers of dust into atmosphere blocking out the sun & if insolation doesn't reduce appreciably etc Chances ?

So what can we do ?

Since its proven & irrefutable CO2 is a driver of retaining heat & as consequence raising water vapour levels in the atmosphere, will we expect to see more water vapour go up if/when CO2 goes up, logically yes. Therefore we could;

- Accelerate new electronics to reduce power needs
- Reduce atmospheric CO2 (& H2O).
- Recycle materials
- Other ?
antigoracle
1 / 5 (6) Oct 15, 2014
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 15, 2014
antigoracle proves AGAIN he confuses climate with weather
http://phys.org/news/2014-10-drought-worst-millennium.html
Thanks mate, predictable as always, showing you see weather as climate.

Did you ever check that they are different ?

Did u antigoracle also notice on the article u linked it states:-

"...made worse by dust storms triggered by the poor agricultural practices of the time"

Have those practices changed maybe improved adapted antigoracle ?

Why do u not learn ?

Why do you so often continue to confuse climate with weather & an isolated incident linked to naive agricultural practices ?

Smarter please antigoracle, hmmm, haven't I asked u for this before - BE smarter (sigh)
Returners
1 / 5 (8) Oct 16, 2014
Jump in anytime verkle & explain Y your god punishes innocents ?


"To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord."

The answer is quite simply that if they are innocent they go to a much better place than this eventually.

God gave man free will. Many people do in fact suffer for reasons out of their control, but which may have been caused by other people.

A family with 10 kids is in poverty. Not the child's fault, you are correct. It's the parent's fault for producing an irresponsible number of offspring. God did not punish any innocents. Irresponsible, or evil people exercising their free will causes much of this.

Cancer? Well there's chemicals and radiation, which man makes.

the Bible teaches that God did not want man to live forever in a "fallen" state, so he forbade the "tree of life" to Adam and Eve. Thus physical death, for the righteous, is the gateway to a higher, more pure form of existence and relationship, through the Savior, by Grace.
Returners
1 / 5 (6) Oct 16, 2014
Past simulations of climate have all failed. Why should we believe this new one? Sounds like a lot of made up scenarios, making the simulation to match some subset of data, and then claiming Eureka! And this is all from purported "scientists".


Simulations fail because we have partial data.

Having more data, at a higher resolution and precision, can't be a bad thing in the long term.

However, there is a weird phenomena in some computer simulations where an increase in the precision of data can, on occasion, decrease the accuracy or precision of the outcome. This is related to "chaos theory" where certain types of systems or equations have a drastically different outcome given a very small initial change in data. In this case, it actually means the equation is imperfect.

This is why you need more and more data, and you use different types of models with different types of equations to see if they agree with one another, much like hurricane models.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (7) Oct 16, 2014
antigoracle proves AGAIN he confuses climate with weather

Ah, the never ending chant of the ignorant AGW Cult's Chicken Little.
Tell us mike, how AGW has affected the climate of the US?
pandora4real
1 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2014
I got one of these trolls to shut up the other day. In the grocery line heard a guy behind me start reciting the lines he's supposed to recite for his masters, Big Oil. I turned around and said, "You don't know me, but I have a present for you". I kneed him so hard in the nuts he threw up. Friend tried to help him and I broke a bottle over his head.

THAT is how you deal with climate trolls. And you can stop reading phys.org because they have no desire to get rid of these parasitic accounts. You can find the same stuff, with better moderation...almost anywhere.
Steve 200mph Cruiz
5 / 5 (5) Oct 16, 2014

Ah, the never ending chant of the ignorant AGW Cult's Chicken Little.
Tell us mike, how AGW has affected the climate of the US?


Seriously? Every other day there's an article on this site explaining how it's effecting us.
You deny the conclusions of every article on this site, then have the audacity to ask, "When has global warming effected the US?"
So what evidence are you looking for?
You aren't looking for evidence, your name says it all. It's not about science to you, it's about sticking it to liberals, and you ignore everything that doesn't support you preconceived ideals.

Bush was a terrible president, just a spoiled little rich boy who didn't know what to do when he found out actions have consequences. I'm not a big fan of al gore my self, but damn you if you tell me Bush did a better job than he would of done.

The atmosphere is 62 miles thick, it's an hour drive to outer space. We effect our climate.

antigoracle
1 / 5 (6) Oct 17, 2014
Again, the blabbering of the AGW Cult's idiot, above.
So I must repeat. How has AGW affected the climate of the US?
Vietvet
5 / 5 (7) Oct 17, 2014
Again, the blabbering of the AGW Cult's idiot, above.
So I must repeat. How has AGW affected the climate of the US?


This took about 30 seconds to find.

http://www.epa.go...echange/
antigoracle
1 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2014
And, we have another idiot of the AGW Cult.
Tell us, from that link, what evidence has been presented that is distinguishable from weather.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2014
And, we have another idiot of the AGW Cult.
Tell us, from that link, what evidence has been presented that is distinguishable from weather.


Once again you've proved you can't read.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (5) Oct 17, 2014
Once again you've proven you can bray like the dumb donkey you are. Now go bray to someone else jackass.
How has AGW affected the climate of the US?
Vietvet
5 / 5 (6) Oct 17, 2014
Once again you've proven you can bray like the dumb donkey you are. Now go bray to someone else jackass.
How has AGW affected the climate of the US?


http://www.epa.go...echange/

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Oct 17, 2014
So I must repeat. How has AGW affected the climate of the US?
@antiG

i've already posted it numerous times

http://marine.rut..._pub.pdf

maybe this video will help you understand?

https://www.youtu...m9JAdfcs

this article simplifies it further for those who can't read or understand studies

http://qz.com/163...n-worse/
it even includes the relevant pieces from the video (attached to the article) which explain the study above

maybe you should stick to the last link

antigoracle
1 / 5 (5) Oct 17, 2014
Ah yes the extreme weather sermon. Have a gander at this
http://en.wikiped...urricane
http://www.livesc...rds.html
Now tell us how any of what you have linked to is climate change and not weather.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (7) Oct 17, 2014
Ah yes the extreme weather sermon. Have a gander at this
http://en.wikiped...urricane
Now tell us how any of what you have linked to is climate change and not weather.


The climate in the USA has already changed.

http://www.nytime...tml?_r=0
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Oct 17, 2014
Now tell us how any of what you have linked to is climate change and not weather.
@antiG
in other words, you didn't read the study
the STUDY linked CLIMATE CHANGE and AGW to WEATHER CHANGES by the disruption of the jet stream

you specifically asked
How has AGW affected the climate of the US?
now, besides the obvious warming trend, i gave you empirical evidence of CLIMATE CHANGE affecting WEATHER and how AGW affected the CLIMATE of the US
in a study that even had a video for idiots like you to watch

so... tell me again
what EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE do you have to REFUTE THE STUDY?
NONE
i didn't think so
thanks for playing
and for letting us know that you are a TROLL
Steve 200mph Cruiz
5 / 5 (5) Oct 18, 2014
Again, the blabbering of the AGW Cult's idiot, above.
So I must repeat. How has AGW affected the climate of the US?


If you want to dissuade me, prove that the atmosphere isn't 62 miles thick and that CO2 doesn't retain more heat than nitrogen.
It's that easy to get me on your side.
Returners
1 / 5 (4) Oct 18, 2014
I think we need a new law of physics explain this phenomenon. I vote for "Dark Ice".
Mike_Massen
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 18, 2014
Returners desperately needs an education to avoid this futile attempt at satire
I think we need a new law of physics explain this phenomenon. I vote for "Dark Ice".
Already covered, from scientific study of the properties of matter, heavily researched since the renaissance some time after religion had 1500+ years of keeping us in darkness !

Its called specific heat. Look up water's "latent heat of fusion" in comparison with specific heat of ice & water, then with some thought you will see how thermodynamics works with differential heat capacity to absorb heat !

This is hard data, irrefutable, it does however require logic which arises from practiced development of intellect you know the thing that's not testable ever such as a deity's faith.
EnricM
5 / 5 (2) Oct 20, 2014
EASY:

Enter Statistics: The AVERAGE is the sum of all data points divided by the amount of data points (temperatures).

Global Warming: Increase of the AVERAGE temperatures over time.

Why are some glaciares not melting? : If you are in a point who´s AVERAGE temperature is -2 C an increase in +1C still leaves it under null, right? Nuff said.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.