Global Warming? The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years!

You are not interpreting the color scale correctly.

White is a false color and means there is more ice coverage, not less ice coverage.

You notice the false color "white" does not show up at all on the color scale for each chart.

Most satellite photos utilize false colors to make details better stand out.

"From Real Science: “1979 was the peak year for Arctic ice, yet 2012 has more ice around Greenland and Alaska than 1979 did.”

Same date satellite data seems to show that Iceland and everywhere else is iced over this year when they were feeling a little green 33 years ago."

 

Respectfully, you missed the point of the article, Colonel K.

If glaciers lose ice mass, the global sea level rises. If they gain ice mass, the global seal level falls. The ice that forms on tops of the high-altitude glaciers comes from water that evaporates from the surface of the world's oceans, is transported in the troposphere by winds and air currents and is deposited as snow on the tops of the world's highest glaciers.

The satellite measurement shows the high-altitude glaciers are gaining more ice mass than the low altitude glaciers are losing. Therefore, global seal level rise is not a problem as the global "alarmists" would like to have us believe and incorrectly claim it to be.

 

Those "global alarmists" seem to include NASA.

I will take their information and data before I take some posters data on an internet forum.

And NASA says that sea levels are on the increase, Iceland ice is melting, CO2 is rising, Antartic ice is melting,and it is caused by climate change.

The graphs on temp sow a steady increase.
The graphs on CO2 show a steady increase.
The graphs on Icelandic and Antartic ice show a steady decrease.
They also say sea levals are rising.
I like to get my science information from people that actually do science. Not from some political "think tank".

NASA has launched a few satellites themselves. They are pretty good at it.

 

Respectfully, I correctly identified the point of the article, which was misrepresentation and fraud.

 

You are mistaken, Colonel K.

Look carefully at the color scale in both satellite images.

These color scales show "sea ice concentration." The white areas you see in the satellite images show ice and snow coverage of land masses near the polar region.

This is why they are white. They do not represent "sea ice concentration" as you incorrectly conclude.

Respectfully, I would believe NASA's review of their satellite data before I would accept your review when you are unable to interpret the color scale of the satellite charts correctly.

 

You are mistaken, Colonel K.

You are attempting to create a "strawman" argument.

"One would NOT expect more ice in the second picture as the first is NOT closer to the annual minimum ice level in September."

The first image was taken 3/07/79. The second image was taken 3/06/2012. Both images compare the extent of ice in the polar region for the same month (March) but different years.

Why would you even bring up the month of September when it six months earlier than when these images were taken?

You did it to create a fallacious "strawman" argument, that's why!

Nice try, but no cigar!

 

So does this mean I might not have to pay for Carbon Credits so's guys like
Al Gore and pals can profit like Kings.
I mean,we all knowed that paying carbon credits would have caused this latest heatwave
to just up and move out like a Cloud 9 does when Cows Moo ... too loud.

 

You are correct, Foolardi,

Al Gore thought he was going to make billions of dollors by selling carbon credits to U.S. energy companies.

He and Enron Corporation were going to become very wealthy and very powerful together.

We all know what happened to Enron Corporation, don't we?

Now if we can only get rid of Barack Obama and his energy department like we got rid of Al Gore!

Obama said several weeks ago it’s not the president’s job “to make a lot of money for investors.”

Obama will continue to place the same bad bets for the U.S. taxpayers until we send his "skinny ass" back to Chicago where he definitely belongs! ... Obama could care less about the destruction of 3,900 pallets filled with glass tubes that were used to make Solyndra’s solar panels. After all, the money for this fiasco was paid for by the U.S. taxpayers. Obama's bad decision did not cost him one red cent!



All of Barack Obama's business investments ($11.35 billion) on the part of U.S. taxpayers have been unmitigated economic disasters!

 

Has anyone thought of a different solution than carbon credits?

I am so tired of the Federal Government taxing and throwing good money at every problem.

I never liked the idea of carbon credits and I guess you would call me a warmist.

We should try other solutions.

 

Signcutter, the pics are just more dishonesty by those with an agenda.
If you go to the original page you will see this disclaimer:

This has been pointed out to JC before, but he keeps posting the misleading images.

 

But it does mean that the area is getting warmer.

 

You created this same thread a few months ago

FYI
http://www.livescience.com/18372-ice-caps-glaciers-melt-satellite.html
NASA Satellites Show How Our Icy World Is Melting
...including the Himalayas, was dramatically lower: 4 billion tons annually versus up to 50 billion.

 

That link shows an ice age over the whole northern half of North America. I smell crap.

 

FYI, you should consider an eye examination, the '79 photo shows Iceland completely surrounded. Or are you just using a large scale to mislead.

A simple web search, "trees growing in tundra"; trees are increasing, and unchecked will convert to a forest.

 

I would expect the upper Himalayas to get a little more snow, most of which should have fallen elsewhere, because there is more water in the atmposphere, which is trapped on the high peaks as snow because those peaks act rather like condensation nuclei to precipitate the water vapor.

The importan measure is how the Cascades are doing. For that matter, how is Kilimanjaro doing?

If the snow continues to disappear as it has over the last couple decades, somebody is in deep kimchi.

 

You are mistaken, MannieD.

You are attempting to set up a strawman argument.

If you have any problems with these images, please take them up with NASA.

NASA is the reliable source for these images, not me.

Please provide a NASA source that say these satellite images are not correct and do not show more ice coverage in and around the polar region during 2012 than they did in 1979. ... you can't!

It is obvious you do not like what these satellite images represent; therefore you do your best (unsuccessfully) to discredit good scientific data.

Sad. ... Very Sad.

 

You are mistaken, leftysergeant.

Large mountain peaks do not act like condensation nuclei; very tiny particles (aerosols, dust particles) in the atmosphere do.

Where on earth did you get this idea?

Also, the snow falls from higher altitudes above the peaks. Snow does not form on the peaks. My high school students learned these simple facts when they studied 8th grade science!

 

Yes mountains do.

Warm moist air off oceans, large lakes etc will rise when it hits mountains ranges. The sudden cooling causes the warm moist air to condense and depending on altitude will either fall as rain or snow.

I lived near the ocean most of my life. In summer, warm moist air from the Pacific Ocean would hit the escarpment 20 kilometres behind us and dump rain on the escarpment as it rises. If the montains would have been much higher, this rain would have been snow.

Google Orthographic rainfall.

 

You are mistaken, lizarddust.

Large mountain peaks No NOT act like condensation nuclei.

Warm moist air off oceans, large lakes etc will rise when it hits mountains ranges and is carried loft by the atmosphere as it flows over these ranges. The sudden cooling at higher altitudes causes the warm moist air to become supersaturated. The water vapor will not condense out as rain or snow until it first has nucleation sites (dust particles, aerosols, silicate materials such as clay minerals and micas) to condense on. Only them will it form rain (water) particles and snow flakes.

Check this out.

How does snow form inside clouds?

Certain minerals suspended in clouds can act as the core of a fledgling snow crystal.

Snowflakes are born inside clouds at high elevations, where temperatures plunge to well below the freezing point of water. Silicate materials – clay minerals and micas – can act as the core of a fledgling snow crystal.

Water molecules join together in a rigid pattern – a tiny ice structure that’s the heart of a snow crystal. The crystal grows by continuing to collect water vapor, and by the attachment of water droplets to its surface.

As it grows, it gets heavier. It starts falling through the cloud. On its way down, it encounters millions more drops of water. The ice crystal gets bigger as the droplets in the cloud give their water to it. All over the cloud, the number of ice crystals multiplies – and soon the whole cloud might be ice. If the flakes of ice get heavy enough, they might fall out of the cloud, drift down to Earth, and blanket the ground as snow.

source: http://earthsky.org/earth/how-does-snow-form-inside-clouds-2

 

Why is there more relatively warm water entering the Artic Sea?

One reason that there has been a weather change is that the sun is going farther North in Summer and farther South in Winter.

But you seldom hear about it.

I know it is doing this because the sun rises farther to the North East in Summer and sets farther to the South West in winter than before. Mountain peaks were iluminated in the morning, that didn't used to get illuminated like that.

Shadows and sun rays going where they have not gone before indicate a shift in the Earth's axis so that the Northern Hemisphere is tilted more towards sun in Summer than before.

 

The snow and rainfall on the Himalayas is due to Orthographic rainfall. Warm moisture laden air rising, condensing and therefore falling.


Here is how it all works but in very simplistic terms. Get yourself a wooden builder's wedge, lay it on a table with the pointy end facing north, the vertical side facing south. In simple terms, this is what the Himalayas look like, a giant wedge. The vertical side is the the Indian, Nepalese and Bhutanese side. The pointy end facing Central Asia.

Warm moist air moves from the southern tropical regions. The massive air movements forces air over the southern face of the Himalayas, were it condenses into rain and because of the high altitude, into ice and snow. The air movement is so vast, it's pushed over the top of the Himalayas also causing snow on the Tibetan Plateau. All the rainfall and snow on the Tibetan Plateau comes in from the south, from higher altitudes. In summertime, the winds shift to the north which are warmer and drier.

Any air movement from the north is arid, because Central Asia is generally desert. Air movement from the north doesn't bring rain or snow.

Irrespective of condensation nuclei, the snow and rainfall on the Himilayas is Orthographic rainfall. If for example the Himalayas didn't exist, air would not rise to form rain and snow, until this air movement met colder air moving in the opposite direction where the warm moist would air rise over the cooler air.

 

Got evidence from a reliable source?

 

It also shows that the sea ice is less extensive over the Atlantic, with slight increase in the Pacific.

Nothing here contradicts global warming.

 

Yes and that has been pointed out <<<mod edit>>>in the past in another thread.

 

You are mistaken, leftysergeant.

The satellite images do not show sea ice is less extensive over the Atlantic, with slight increase in the Pacific.

You are not reading the color scale charts correctly.

The images clearly show there was significantly more snow and ice cover of the land masses (white areas) in 2012 than there was at the same time of year in 1979.

The problem with the "warmies" in this group is they do not know how to correctly read scientific data!

Sad … Very Sad!