|
Post by lazarus on Sept 6, 2010 12:32:34 GMT 1
Despite the IPCC error regarding Asian glaciers the U.S. Geological Survey have recently reported that; "Many of Asia’s glaciers are retreating as a result of climate change. This retreat impacts water supplies to millions of people, increases the likelihood of outburst floods that threaten life and property in nearby areas, and contributes to sea-level rise.
The U.S. Geological Survey, in collaboration with 39 international scientists, published a report on the status of glaciers throughout all of Asia, including Russia, China, India, Nepal, Bhutan, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Kazakhstan."
www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2573&from=rss_home
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 6, 2010 13:17:25 GMT 1
Yep, they've been retreating since the last ice age. So what? Next.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 6, 2010 13:21:41 GMT 1
When was the last time glaciers ADVANCED in Asia? The Little Ice Age. Since then they have gone into reverse. This is "normal variation" No need at all to posit CO2 as the culprit of every change in climatic variables. What happens when glaciers retreat? Sometimes you find human archeological remains as in Greenland (Vikings) or the Alps or the remains of treestumps which indicate a much higher treeline in times past - more evidence of Natural Variation! Here are two useful contributions to the melting glacier debate I found on a blog somewhere: --------- A glacier in equilibrium releases as much water as it receives from precipitation. Release is in the form of runoff, infiltration or evaporation. If precipitation does not change, and warming causes the total disappearance of a glacier (which may happen only in relatively low altitude glaciers), the difference would be in the seasonality of runoff, not the amount. And the reduction is not linear: if 20% has disappeared in 20 years, it does not mean the rest would disappear in another 80 years or so: the receding occurs at the lower parts, but predicted warming would not melt ice at high altitudes, usually too cold for melting even if warmed a few degrees. On the other hand, if precipitation is reduced, less water per year would be available, no matter if the glacier is melting or not, except that during the warming/melting process there would actually be increased runoff due to increased summer melting. ------- Steve McIntyre Posted Jan 24, 2010 at 5:22 PM I agree with the points about melt versus precipitation. If melting glaciers are a material contributor to water supply, then society is in effect depleting a sort of reservoir. And stabilizing the glacier (reservoir) would cause the same decrease in water supply. My understanding of the true situation is that glacier depletion would only account for a few percentage points (at most) of total runoff. The water supply issue would be whether warming would cause less precipitation. Since a warmer ocean causes more evaporation, perhaps someone can direct me to a reference claiming that precipitation in the Himalayas would decrease in a warmer world. climateaudit.org/2010/01/24/glaciers-and-sunday-in-england/#comments
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 6, 2010 13:37:07 GMT 1
So you see, Lazarus Havelock,
If the glaciers WEREN'T melting a bit the run-off essential to human well-being in the Himalyan foothills would be REDUCED. THAT would be a problem, not a slightly INCREASED melt rate due to a bit of natural warming.
Bless'im! He obviously doesn't get around much on these highly informative blogs where mere laymen discuss the climate quietly between themselves.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 6, 2010 13:48:57 GMT 1
The contribution to sea-level rise from melting glaciers is miniscule - partly because the same warming which causes the fringes of the ice to melt in the first place ALSO causes the higher precipitation which replenishes the glaciers with snow and keeps them VERY NEARLY in equilibrium, apart, that is, from the very small natural variations in earth's warming and cooling.
Of course, since the Sub-Continent has undergone astronomical population growth since the end of the Little Ice Age (late 19th century) any diminution in supply could be a problem there. But that "problem" mainly arises from the DEMAND side, not from the SUPPLY side.
Similarly, the impact of the recent floods in Pakistan was mainly the result of of astronomical population growth there and the resultant increase in those living in unsuitable places, rather than the severity of the flood itself, which was matched by ones as far back in time as 1928 and 1929, which were, of course, WELL before the era of AGW.
|
|
|
Post by havelock on Sept 6, 2010 13:57:48 GMT 1
From the link that Lazarus gave:
"The time period for retreat also differs among each glacier. In Bhutan, 66 glaciers have decreased 8.1 percent over the last 30 years. Rapid changes in the Himalaya is shown in India by the 12 percent retreat of Chhota Shigri Glacier during the last 13 years, as well as retreat of the Gangotri Glacier since 1780, with 12 percent shrinkage of the main stem in the last 16 years."
These seem to be very rapid losses to me. The scientists who authored the paper believe that this is due to global warming. What evidence do you have that it is not?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 6, 2010 17:31:19 GMT 1
I don't have to prove a negative and it is impossible anyway, i.e NOT science.
Remember the Newspeak Climate Dictionary?
"AGW cannot be disproved therefore it is science".
Go read Popper.
|
|
|
Post by havelock on Sept 6, 2010 17:41:52 GMT 1
I'll repeat for clarity "the scientists who wrote this paper thought the effect was due to Global Warming"
Why do you think they are wrong?
I'm not asking you to prove a negative. I'm asking why you think they are not correct. Do you have some insight that they are unaware of or do you have some other explanation?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 6, 2010 17:42:52 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 6, 2010 17:50:12 GMT 1
I think Havelock is a plant from the Global Warming Policy Foundation, his views are so childishly easy for sceptics to challenge.
Is he some sort of newfangled "teaching Aid", I wonder?
|
|
|
Post by havelock on Sept 6, 2010 17:52:56 GMT 1
I think Havelock is a plant from the Global Warming Policy Foundation, his views are so childishly easy for sceptics to challenge. Is he some sort of newfangled "teaching Aid", I wonder? Did you have a point to make about the glacial melt (the topic of this thread) or are you just content to fling around insults?
|
|
|
Post by havelock on Sept 6, 2010 18:05:40 GMT 1
Yes that's good news. I'm pleased about it. However, two points that you may care to address: 1) The ice is still melting - why? 2) How come you are happy to believe these scientists but not others?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 6, 2010 18:11:00 GMT 1
Q. The ice is still melting - why?
A. Because the planet is warming a bit? We are in an interglacial, after all.
Q. How come you are happy to believe these scientists but not others?
A. I have this irresistible urge to use my own judgement.
|
|
|
Post by havelock on Sept 6, 2010 18:24:24 GMT 1
Did you read the abstract of their actual paper? (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n9/full/ngeo938.html )
"Global water transport between oceans and continents during the transition from glacial to interglacial times has been enormous. The viscoelastic solid Earth has been responding to this unloading of large ice masses with a rise of the land masses, in a process termed glacial isostatic adjustment. In addition, significant changes in the land/ocean water distribution occur at present. As both present-day changes in the ice/water thickness and glacial isostatic adjustment affect space geodetic measurements, it is difficult to untangle the relative contributions of these two processes. Here we combine gravity measurements and geodetic data of surface movement with a data-assimilating model of ocean bottom pressure to simultaneously estimate present-day water transport and glacial isostatic adjustment. We determine their separate contributions to movements in the geocentre, which occur in response to changes in the Earth’s mass distribution, with uncertainties below 0.1 mm yr−1. According to our estimates, mass losses between 2002 and 2008 in Greenland, Alaska/Yukon and West Antarctica are 104±23, 101±23 and 64±32 Gt yr−1, respectively. Our estimates of glacial isostatic adjustment indicate a large geocentre velocity of −0.72±0.06 mm yr−1 in the polar direction. We conclude that a significant revision of the present estimates of glacial isostatic adjustments and land–ocean water exchange is required."
I'm glad to see that you now recognise the value of models in climate science.
|
|
|
Post by kiteman on Sept 6, 2010 19:03:47 GMT 1
|
|