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

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by James Cessna, Jul 6, 2012.

  1. James Cessna

    James Cessna New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    13,369
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Probably everyone who has studied climate change agrees the CO2 concentration in the earth's atmosphere is gradually increasing. The "warmies" tell us that man alone is responsible for these increases (this statement actually is not true!) and that the increases we measure in carbon dioxide concenterations are responsilbe for "global warming".

    The inherent fallacy with their argument is these tiny increases in carbon dioxide do not cause a measurable change in the temperature of the earth’s global atmosphere. The high temperatures we are seeing in the northeastern US today are local -- they are not global and are due to changing (high pressure) weather patterns, not global warming. When the air density increases, the more dense air sinks and compresses the air underneath it; as you increase the pressure, you increase the temperature. This is simply physics thay every 9 year old that uses a bicycle pump to air up a bicycle tire understands!

    Does one really believe a tiny increase of 70 individual molecules (290 ppm to 360 ppm) in a huge collection of one million air molecules will produce an appreciable change in the earth's global temperature?

    In comparison, it is a scientific fact that water vapor is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide (it has more and stronger absorption bands in the infrared region of the earth's energy emission spectrum) and its concentration in the earth's atmosphere is 10,000 to 15,000 ppm for a typical relative humidity level of 60 to 70 percent. Again, carbon dioxide today has a concentration of only 390 ppm.

    If the global temperature in the atmosphere were indeed increasing by a measureable extent, we would see appreciable melting of glaciers, correct? Unfortunate for the "warmies", these glaciers are not melting around the world. In fact, these glaciers are actually growing in size! There is true there is some melting of the Arctic ice at very high latitudes, but we now know the ice is melting from underneath and not from the tops of the glaciers and ice packs. The reason for this mass loss from underneath the ice packs is know to be the Thermohaline Circulation, a perfectually natural ocean phenonemon which introduces warm water from lower latitudes into the polar region.

    The next time someone tells you man alone is responsible for global warmnig and the world is going to end, remind them of these simple facts.

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

    "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 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.

    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."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation

    http://www.john-daly.com/polar/arctic.htm

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/08/glaciers-mountains
     
  2. James Cessna

    James Cessna New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    13,369
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    These discussions were very good and very correct!

    As we can see from recent history, both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice is certainly subject to variation. But it would be a mistake to assume that a brief period during which the Arctic is in a thinning cycle is anything more than that - a cycle. We know from past history that it has been subject to earlier retreats as suggested by the opening quote from 1817.

    Part of the problem lay in the fact that useful data on ice extent and thickness only dates from the 1950s, yet our temperature record from Jan Mayen Island at the edge of the Arctic shows that the Arctic was warmer during the 1930s than it was during the 1990s. Unfortunately there is no comprehensive ice data from the 1930s. Instead such data begins in the late 1950s, at a time when the Arctic was entering into the grip of a known cold spell. As that cold period ended, it is hardly surprising to find thinner ice during the latter warmer period.

    There is also the strong correlation between the NAO and the state of Arctic ice, a strongly positive NAO in the last decade increasing the flow rate of warm Atlantic water into the Arctic, while it was predominantly negative during the cold period of the 1960s, resulting in a reduced flow rate of Atlantic water and thus a reduced propensity for ice melt.

    The strong positive NAO of the last decade is not unprecedented. While some might wish to associate this with human-induced `climate change', it is clear from the NAO record that it was also strongly positive during the early decades of the 20th century and even earlier. In other words, the NAO is a real natural cycle, not a manifestation of `global warming'.

    Variability in sea ice thickness has no implications for sea levels. Since ice sea displaces its own weight in sea water, thickening or thinning of sea ice has a zero effect on sea level.

    The freezing Arctic air which descended on North America and Russia during the 2000 winter shows that the Arctic atmosphere has lost none of its frigid bite, thus ensuring further renewal of sea ice.

    The limits on the thickness of Arctic ice are determined by how low the air temperature can get, and on how warm and fast-moving the subsurface water is. Air temperatures measured in the Arctic region show no recent warming, thus discounting the possibility that recent thinning of ice could be caused by atmospheric warming above the ice. Rather, the thinning of ice in the 1990s is clearly associated with a warming of the sub-surface ocean, as shown by the SCICEX data, caused in whole or in part by the strong NAO increasing the flow rate of Atlantic water into the Arctic Ocean.

    There is nothing in the data to suggest anything but natural cycles at work.


    http://www.john-daly.com/polar/arctic.htm
     
  3. James Cessna

    James Cessna New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    13,369
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We know for a fact that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased naturally in the distant past, so therefore we (man) couldn't possibly have had anything to do with these increases back then. However, there are a variety of feedback mechanisms in our climate system that tends to amplify any changes in temperature. Several of mechanisms involve atmospheric CO2 and water vapor.

    For example, the solubility of CO2 in water decreases with temperature, so as the earth’s oceans warm, they can hold less CO2, thereby releasing more into the atmosphere. These slight increases can further increasing the warming. What the "warmies" fail to understand or accept is the "thermohaline circulation" is a natural ocean phenomena that brings warm, mid-latitude ocean water to the frigid Arctic waters that are prevalent at the higher latitudes.

    When these cold Arctic waters warm by mixing with the warmer water, they released carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The oceans cover 71% of the earth's surface. The CO2 released by the frigid Arctic waters as they warm by natural sources far exceeds the CO2 produced today by the combustion and use of fossil fuels.

    Please see the following discussions.

    http://www.john-daly.com/polar/arctic.htm
     
  4. Pred

    Pred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    24,349
    Likes Received:
    17,341
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wait, I was told by the experts that the polar icecaps are melting due to us using too much gasoline? Was I bamboozled=)
     
  5. James Cessna

    James Cessna New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    13,369
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes, you were bamboozled.
     
  6. politicalcenter

    politicalcenter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    11,100
    Likes Received:
    6,786
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It is pretty simple really.

    If the temperature is say 10 degrees below zero and it warms 3 degrees....it is still 7 degrees below zero.

    The ice will not melt.
     
  7. James Cessna

    James Cessna New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    13,369
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You are correct, politicalcenter.

    The problem is the water underneath the polar ice cap is warmer than 0 deg-C, and this warm water causes the glaciers to melt from underneath the floating ice. This warm water is brought to the Arctic region by the "thermohaline circulation", a purely natural phenomenon.
     
  8. James Cessna

    James Cessna New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    13,369
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Here is a great question for the "warmies".

    Why has the earth gone through many cycles of global cooling followed by global warming? During each global warming event, scientists have discovered the earth first warmed as much as 800 years BEFORE the CO2 levels in the atmosphere began increase. After each ice age, an increase in global temperature always LEADS increases in CO2 concentrations; not the other way around.

    What is the scientific reason for this? Global warming at the end of an ice age is first triggered by the Milankovitch Cycles. The earth begins to warm. As the oceans warm, they release carbon dioxide and water vapor into the atmosphere. The carbon dioxide and wather vapor produce more global warming, and soon we have left the ice age and entered a new age of warmer, moderate temperatures. In this case, you will agree carbon dioxide is A GOOD THING because its presence brought us out of an ice age very quickly.
     
  9. politicalcenter

    politicalcenter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    11,100
    Likes Received:
    6,786
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This is all well and good...but please explain to me why the glaciers have been melting at a faster rate during the last decade.

    Saying something is "natural" does not cut it with me.

    Why is it natural and what are the mechanisms?
    And why is the "natural" phenomenom increasing the melt rate of the glaciers?

    I would love to hear the deniers POV on this.
     
  10. James Cessna

    James Cessna New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    13,369
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That is a good question.

    However, recent satellites studies now show the earlier information was in serious error.

    All of the hysteria and "arm waving” of the past decade was all for nothing as more reliable scientific information has become available. The "warmies” and their dire predictions of global Armageddon, are now in fast retreat.

    "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."

    Article follows.

    Glaciers

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


    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 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 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.

    source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/08/glaciers-mountains
     
  11. fiddlerdave

    fiddlerdave Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    Messages:
    19,083
    Likes Received:
    2,706
    Trophy Points:
    113
    :lol:

    Note the carefully hidden statistical game the Denialists are playing to make their "headline". Global Warming affects the highest peaks less than lower one because the highest peaks are much less affected by atmosphere, since they are above the majority of it.

    But the main reason is that there are FAR MORE low peaks than the very high ones, and FAR MORE AREA involved in the lowest peaks and land around the peaks .

    Another PROPAGANDA FAIL for the Denialists.
     
  12. signcutter

    signcutter New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,716
    Likes Received:
    93
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Your wasting your time... the spin was evident in the very first post. The label of "warmies' clearly shows the mindset of the poster... no amount of common sense will be effective here.
     
  13. MannieD

    MannieD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And the Guardian and JC's headline "The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years!" is a lie.
     
  14. James Cessna

    James Cessna New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    13,369
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Do the "warmies" in this group have any credible contradictions to refute this theory?

    If you do, I would love to hear them!
     
  15. James Cessna

    James Cessna New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    13,369
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  16. fiddlerdave

    fiddlerdave Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    Messages:
    19,083
    Likes Received:
    2,706
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I would have thought REPUBLISHING the OP article would be redundant, because if YOU had bothered to read it and NOT carefully selected quotes to try to justify your headline that is a LIE concerning GLOBAL Warming, I would have assumed you knew what I was talking about.

    Let me highlight it for you from YOUR source which you MUST admit is credible, yes?!

     
  17. lizarddust

    lizarddust Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,350
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    What's actually been happening in parts of the Himalayas is areas below the permanent frost altitude are having longer summers.

    A friend of mine has a Bhutanese wife. She told me when she was a child the part of Bhutan where she's from, would be under snow and ice for six or eight months of the year. Now her part of Bhutan is under snow for only three to five months a year.
     
  18. James Cessna

    James Cessna New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    13,369
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is good information, lizarddust.

    If the Himalayas are having longer summers, this is a natural phenomena and has nothing to do with the concept of man-made, or anthropogenic global warming.
     
  19. James Cessna

    James Cessna New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    13,369
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You are mistaken, fiddlerdave.

    The lower-altitude glaciers are melting but the higher-altitude glaciers are gaining in ice mass. The Consequently, the sea levels of the oceans are not changing.

    Nice try, but no cigar!

    Check this out!

    Greenland And Alaska Have More Ice Than 1979

    http://www.real-science.com/greenland-alaska-ice-1979
     
  20. lizarddust

    lizarddust Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,350
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
  21. signcutter

    signcutter New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,716
    Likes Received:
    93
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Lies or spin.. either way misleading crapola

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  22. signcutter

    signcutter New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,716
    Likes Received:
    93
    Trophy Points:
    0
    [​IMG]

    Just outta curiosity... is that picture showing ALL of canada and the great lakes covered by Ice or just average winter pics??
     
  23. James Cessna

    James Cessna New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    13,369
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    These images were taken by a polar orbiting satellite.

    To answer your question, notice the exact dates these images were taken.

    You are looking down from the NASA satellite on a view of the north pole.

    Global warming advocates often lie to advance their political and religious causes.

    Satellite images don't lie.

    Here is more information on the subject.


    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...e-ice-this-year-than-in-previous-record-year/
     
  24. signcutter

    signcutter New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,716
    Likes Received:
    93
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I looked and i studied that picture in depth. I dont know why they posted that picture in order to prove that ther is MORE ice this year than in 1979.. makes no sense . If you ignore the inexplicable white coloration of the land masses and only use the "purple " ice areas.. you can see that there is not as much ice coverage .. it is easy to see that the landmasses clearly are surrounded by less ice and more water. Exception being a few very isolated areas near the Aleutian islands and the Alaska coast and the southern tip of Greenland the rest of the Ice cap has receded... your post and its source are very misleading by stating that a net loss of ice is superseded by a few isolated gains... in the end it was much less ice coverage than in 1979

    [​IMG]
     
  25. Colonel K

    Colonel K Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    9,770
    Likes Received:
    556
    Trophy Points:
    113
    One would expect more ice in the second picture as the first is a month closer to the annual minimum ice level in September. Naughty fraud.

    The Himalayas are simply explained by reference to the "Lapse Rate". The higher you go, the colder it gets.

    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page