Thread: The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years, study shows

"Meltwater from Asia's peaks is much less than previously estimated, but lead scientist says the loss of ice caps and glaciers around the world remains a serious concern

The world's greatest snow-capped peaks, which run in a chain from the Himalayas to Tian Shan on the border of China and Kyrgyzstan, have lost no ice over the last decade, new research shows.

The discovery has stunned scientists, who had believed that around 50bn tonnes of meltwater were being shed each year and not being replaced by new snowfall.

The study is the first to survey all the world's icecaps and glaciers and was made possible by the use of satellite data. Overall, the contribution of melting ice outside the two largest caps – Greenland and Antarctica – is much less than previously estimated, with the lack of ice loss in the Himalayas and the other high peaks of Asia responsible for most of the discrepancy.

Bristol University glaciologist Prof Jonathan Bamber, who was not part of the research team, said: "The very unexpected result was the negligible mass loss from high mountain Asia, which is not significantly different from zero."

The melting of Himalayan glaciers caused controversy in 2009 when a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change mistakenly stated that they would disappear by 2035, instead of 2350. However, the scientist who led the new work is clear that while greater uncertainty has been discovered in Asia's highest mountains, the melting of ice caps and glaciers around the world remains a serious concern.

"Our results and those of everyone else show we are losing a huge amount of water into the oceans every year," said Prof John Wahr of the University of Colorado. "People should be just as worried about the melting of the world's ice as they were before."

His team's study, published in the journal Nature, concludes that between 443-629bn tonnes of meltwater overall are added to the world's oceans each year. This is raising sea level by about 1.5mm a year, the team reports, in addition to the 2mm a year caused by expansion of the warming ocean.

The scientists are careful to point out that lower-altitude glaciers in the Asian mountain ranges – sometimes dubbed the "third pole" – are definitely melting. Satellite images and reports confirm this. But over the study period from 2003-10 enough ice was added to the peaks to compensate.

The impact on predictions for future sea level rise is yet to be fully studied but Bamber said: "The projections for sea level rise by 2100 will not change by much, say 5cm or so, so we are talking about a very small modification." Existing estimates range from 30cm to 1m.

Wahr warned that while crucial to a better understanding of ice melting, the eight years of data is a relatively short time period and that variable monsoons mean year-to-year changes in ice mass of hundreds of billions of tonnes. "It is awfully dangerous to take an eight-year record and predict even the next eight years, let alone the next century," he said.

The reason for the radical reappraisal of ice melting in Asia is the different ways in which the current and previous studies were conducted. Until now, estimates of meltwater loss for all the world's 200,000 glaciers were based on extrapolations of data from a few hundred monitored on the ground. Those glaciers at lower altitudes are much easier for scientists to get to and so were more frequently included, but they were also more prone to melting.

The bias was particularly strong in Asia, said Wahr: "There extrapolation is really tough as only a handful of lower-altitude glaciers are monitored and there are thousands there very high up."

The new study used a pair of satellites, called Grace, which measure tiny changes in the Earth's gravitational pull. When ice is lost, the gravitational pull weakens and is detected by the orbiting spacecraft. "They fly at 500km, so they see everything," said Wahr, including the hard-to-reach, high-altitude glaciers.

"I believe this data is the most reliable estimate of global glacier mass balance that has been produced to date," said Bamber. He noted that 1.4 billion people depend on the rivers that flow from the Himalayas and Tibetan plateau: "That is a compelling reason to try to understand what is happening there better."

He added: "The new data does not mean that concerns about climate change are overblown in any way. It means there is a much larger uncertainty in high mountain Asia than we thought. Taken globally all the observations of the Earth's ice – permafrost, Arctic sea ice, snow cover and glaciers – are going in the same direction."

Grace launched in 2002 and continues to monitor the planet, but it has passed its expected mission span and its batteries are beginning to weaken. A replacement mission has been approved by the US and German space agencies and could launch in 2016.

• This article was amended on 9 February 2012. The original sub-heading read "Melting ice from Asia's peaks is much less then previously estimated" as did the photo caption and text: "Melting ice outside the two largest caps - Greenland and Antarctica - is much less then previously estimated". These have all been corrected."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...ins?intcmp=122

Hmmmmmmmm..............

"The high mountains of Asia, in particular, show a mass loss of only 4 ± 20 Gt yr−1 for 2003–2010, compared with 47–55 Gt yr−1 in previously published estimates2, 5"

Recent contributions of glaciers and ice caps to sea level rise

That is an awfully large amount of uncertainty. It's like saying your weight is 150 -+ 750 lbs.

"The total contribution to sea level rise from all ice-covered regions is thus 1.48 ± 0.26 mm −1, which agrees well with independent estimates of sea level rise originating from land ice loss and other terrestrial sources6."

I think he is missing a "yr" before the " -1"

Originally Posted by MannieD

"The high mountains of Asia, in particular, show a mass loss of only 4 ± 20 Gt yr−1 for 2003–2010, compared with 47–55 Gt yr−1 in previously published estimates2, 5"

Recent contributions of glaciers and ice caps to sea level rise

That is an awfully large amount of uncertainty. It's like saying your weight is 150 -+ 750 lbs.

"The total contribution to sea level rise from all ice-covered regions is thus 1.48 ± 0.26 mm −1, which agrees well with independent estimates of sea level rise originating from land ice loss and other terrestrial sources6."

I think he is missing a "yr" before the " -1"

Am I supposed to believe that people can measure the sea level to 1.48 ± 0.26 mm ?

My business is GPS and inertial navigation, I don't believe for one second that anyone can measure the sea level to that degree of accuracy.

Originally Posted by DaveInFL

Am I supposed to believe that people can measure the sea level to 1.48 ± 0.26 mm ?

My business is GPS and inertial navigation, I don't believe for one second that anyone can measure the sea level to that degree of accuracy.

This is the beginning and the end of science. Scientists can fool only people who have absolutely no clue about reality which surrounds them. Out of 1000s post on global warming I see the first one which has a healthy perception of reality. It is impossible to measure anything – temperature (of what?) or water level (?) with accuracy claimed by scientists. It is even less possible to write the non-existing data in equations of thermodynamics and heat exchange. It is even less possible to make any comparison in time and history and see mechanisms. Even if you were dealing with a static system, water levels, it is impossible. I am not even mentioning dependence of water level on gravitational forces of the solar system, the moon, the spin, the distance, the velocity, the angle of centrifugal moment, etc,etc, etc. Anyone who has dealt with such things – and you have done on your side, - knows for sure without even a second of doubt that the $multibillion industry of climate change/ global warming is a hoax, woody science, mental and psychological sickness, theory of evolution. I am not even mention calibration of instruments and theory of accuracy of technological measurements in historical time, etc, etc, etc.

Arguing to scientists is like arguing to mentally handicapped http://www.politicalforum.com/religi...post1060795552

or to kindergarten kids http://www.politicalforum.com/religi...ml#post4997532

except for the fact that they are adults, very adaptive, very malicious and ill intended, like a parasite bacteria.


You have a good day, Dave in Fl.

Less and less people believe in the fraud that is "global warming".

Originally Posted by _Inquisitor_

It is impossible to measure anything – temperature (of what?) or water level with accuracy claimed by scientists..

First, an argument from incredulity fallacy. You don't understand it, so you declare it can't be possibly be true.

Second, some conspiracy theory raving.

Third, ignorance of how statistical analysis works.

When multiple independent measurements are averaged, the errors are reduced. That's basic statistics. Go get educated on that topic, to spare yourselves further embarrassment. And rest assured that scientists don't share your ignorance.

Originally Posted by mamooth

1. First, an argument from incredulity fallacy. You don't understand it, so you declare it can't be possibly be true.

6. Second, some conspiracy theory raving.

1. Third, ignorance of how statistical analysis works.

2. Go get educated on that topic, to spare yourselves further embarrassment. And rest assured that scientists don't share your ignorance.

http://lib.ru/ILFPETROV/ilf_petrov_12_chairs_engl.txt

CHAPTER TWENTY-TWO


ELLOCHKA THE CANNIBAL

William Shakespeare's vocabulary has been estimated by the experts at twelve thousand words. The vocabulary of a Negro from the Mumbo Jumbo tribe amounts to three hundred words.
Ellochka Shukin managed easily and fluently on thirty.
Here are the words, phrases and interjections which she fastidiously picked from the great, rich and expressive Russian language:
1. You're being vulgar.
2. Ho-ho (expresses irony, surprise, delight, loathing, joy, contempt and satisfaction, according to the circumstances).
3. Great!
4. Dismal (applied to everything-for example: "dismal Pete has arrived", "dismal weather", or a "dismal cat").
5. Gloom.
6. Ghastly (for example: when meeting a close female acquaintance, "a ghastly meeting").
7. Kid (applied to all male acquaintances, regardless of age or social position).
8. Don't tell me how to live!
9. Like a babe ("I whacked him like a babe" when playing cards, or "I brought him down like a babe," evidently when talking to a legal tenant).
10.Ter-r-rific!
11. Fat and good-looking (used to describe both animate and
inanimate objects).
12. Let's go by horse-cab (said to her husband).
13. Let's go by taxi (said to male acquaintances).
14. You're all white at the back! (joke).
15. Just imagine!
16. Ula (added to a name to denote affection-for example: Mishula, Zinula).
17. Oho! (irony, surprise, delight, loathing, joy, contempt and
satisfaction)." The extraordinary small number of words remaining were used as connecting links between Ellochka and department-store assistants.


When Ellochka had 30 words all Bowgirl’s arguments may be brought down to less then a dozen.

1. You don’t understand science (evolution) (climate)(Marxism), don’t you?
2. You should get some education.
3. 97% of scientists are wrong and you are right?
4. 97% of scientists believe in global warming.
5. read this:
somethingImyslefcannotundersta ndbutitisfrommyside. com.NASA.gov
6. You really think it is a conspiracy?
7. scientists can be easily bough by oil companies money, scientists cannot be bought by government’s money extracted from taxpayers. Oil and government use different money.
8. …. Not too many more are there

now cassandrabra has came up with anew one:

13. You have submitted 12 equations; IF I prove (using arguments listed above) that one of them is wrong, will you accept that others are wrong?
14. I did not say that
15. You have not proven anything.

Still, a typical AWG believer cannot make up to the intellectual level of Ellochka Cannibal and the level of the MumboJumbo tribe is like a Nobel Prize for a warmer. I mean the Nobel Peace prize.


Here goes argument Argument #6. You can call me birther, truther, conspiracy theorist, denier. I accept that it is not within perception of Obama supporters that such calling does not constitute a valid argument but a proof that those who use argument #6 have nothing to counter basic and simple truth.

I am birther, I am denier, some people call me the space cowboy
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPOKJikcYMk"]Steve Miller Band - The Joker - YouTube[/ame]
http://www.politicalforum.com/scienc...post1060843749

Originally Posted by mamooth

When multiple independent measurements are averaged, the errors are reduced. That's basic statistics.

scientists mix statistics and "technological measuments". they make up multiple independant instruments.

They avoid addressing the point expressed in the posts they quote. You want me to explain basics? can you read what I stated 1?

what was the registered acciracy of measurement of a single weather stattion in 1880, 1890, 1900, ...2010? Were the same instruments used in 1900 and 2000? Were they calibrated in the same way and verified against each other?

independant? truly they are.

if you take 2 thermometers with+-1C of accuracy and measure the same T and one shows 12C and another 13C, what is the accuracy of measurement of this T? what is the overage T? which T is true? Please.. Shoot!

The report is a fraud, and the thread should be combined with the others started in the last two or three days.

Originally Posted by _Inquisitor_

if you take 2 thermometers with+-1C of accuracy and measure the same T and one shows 12C and another 13C, what is the accuracy of measurement of this T? what is the overage T?!

The temperature should correctly be stated as 12.5C, with an accuracy of +/- 1.0/SQRT(2) = ~0.7C

That's basic statistics. I find it humorous that you thought it was some kind of difficult question.

The same methods are used to average the many thousands of temperature measurements. It gets more complicated when your various measurements have different errors assigned to each of them, but that's not a problem when you have computers.

Originally Posted by mamooth

The temperature should correctly be stated as 12.5C, with an accuracy of +/- 1.0/SQRT(2) = ~0.7C

That's basic statistics. I find it humorous that you thought it was some kind of difficult question.

.

I find it humorous that you thought what I thought.

In my previous answer above I demonstrated that warming worshipers are struggling to reach the level of Ellochka Cannibal. I am still working on putting the arguments and beliefs of worshipers in a more simple and universal way. This mind reading should certainly be incorporated. I am working on it.

Try to understand, that I see the world differently. In difference from obama supporters I do not see that everyone holds a stick behind his back and hides his real thoughts and intentions in the same way as Obama supporters do themselves.

I do ask simple questions. And I do wish you to answer them. I hope not all Obama supporters and evolutionists are brain and soul dead. I see them as the same humans as me and I’d be glad to see some reaction to stimuli, to light, sound, movement of my lips.

I do ask simple questions. I do wish you to answer simple questions. You may answer them wrong, you may misspell, your calculations may be erroneous, you may have to research, you may not know the answer, - I do not want to over smart you. Just show that you are not brain and soul dead, bro human. Again I have different psychology. It’s written in the Bible – What is good for you if you over smart all the world but loose your own soul? Something like this.

My questions are simple. There not only scientists here. There are nurses, electricians, drivers, even burger flappers and even Australians. You can recognize Australians for walking up side down. Not everyone can know the basics of statistics. Not everyone remembers them. “How much is 2x2” is easy only for a sophomore, a graduate has to pullout a calculator.

But a nurse and an electrician and a driver can see if an evolutionist and worshiper answers simple questions or he does not, but instead does mind reading and invokes
Ellochka’s arguments.

Even a high school drop out and even an Australian can look at my questions and see if you answered them or not, but instead invoked Ellochka’s vocabulary.

What are you afraid of? You know that if you answer simple questions as they stated you will see yourself that all scientists are wrong and I am correct in my original statement on this tread, and the poster I answered to was the first one who was correct? Don’t be afraid. Freedom may look scary, the warms of the collective slave nest feels so protecting but believe me there is nothing like a free flight. Try, the truth seth you free.