Good news: Himalayan Glaciers are actually growing.

Reported here:

theregister.co.uk/2012/04/1…

This is another item that raises questions about catastrophic projections associated with the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

Oh my.

I'm going to try not to turn this into a political flamefest (since that may be your motivation), but let's clear up a bit of the science here. I'm not even going to get into any heavy climate science; lets just stick to the glaciers. There are a few points that need to be made:

1. There is a good reason that the climate science establishment has abandoned the term "global warming" in favor of "climate change". The latter term is more accurate, and helps to divert misunderstandings such as this one As average temperatures rise on the global scale, it will alter the climate's mechanisms of heat distribution (especially ocean currents), causing some ares to get much warmer, while other areas actually get colder. Hence the term 'global warming' being a bit misleading, especially if you happen to live in one of the areas that will get colder.

2. An increase in glacial area and mass can be controlled by factors other than temperature; it is possible to have growing glaciers even as the temperatures increase. This is because of the other factor controlling glacial size: precipitation. Glacial mass balance is essentially determined by the interactions between winter snowfall and summer snowmelt. If more snow falls in the winter than melts in the summer, then the glacier grows. This is a slightly simplified picture, but is sums up the basics pretty well. What this balance means is that you can have glaciers in some relatively warm places (New Zealand, the PNW, etc.), so long as it gets a TON of snow. Alternatively, there are some very cold places (the Dry Valleys of Antarctica, parts of Tibet, etc.) that are not glaciated, despite their coldness, due to their very minimal precipitation. What this means for the Himalayan glaciers is that an increase in regional and global temperature could actually stimulate glacial growth. This would occur by the warmer temperatures increasing evaporation on the Indian Ocean, which would provide for more moisture in the annual monsoon, which would mean more snowfall in the Himalaya. This snowfall increase would be balanced against the increased summer melting, but it is certainly possible that the snow would "win".

3. Alpine glaciers are relatively unimportant in the grand scheme of climate feedbacks. They matter locally to the people in thier watershed that use glacial melt to provide a year-round water source, but overall the alpine glaciers are a very small part of the picture. Continental ice sheets (Greenland, Antarctica), arctic pack ice, and ocean temperature and circulation are much much much more significant metrics. Alpine glaciers get a disproportionate share of attention though, partially from science and especially by media, for a few reasons. For one, they are a bit of a "canary in a coal mine"; alpine glaciers are smaller systems and thus respond much more quickly to changes than the larger ice sheets can. Secondly, they have become a powerful visual symbol that the public can easily understand; a receding glacier looks like smoking-gun evidence that seems to directly correlate with warming (although, as my prior point suggests, this is untrue). Use of them as a key symbol has become a bit of a devil's bargain, however, because it leads to misconceptions like Shawn's, which exactly correlate climate change with alpine glaciers. Really, alpine glaciers are pretty unimportant to most of the world, and even if they all melt away, most of the world's population would never notice (although I would be sad, because I like glaciers). What matters a lot more, with regard to the "catastrophic projections" are Greenland, Antarctica, pack ice, and the North Atlantic Current; these are powerful drivers int he climate system, and any disruption of them will have major global consequences.

So here's a quick summary:

An increase in glacial mass in one alpine region absolutely does not "disprove" climate change. Rather, climate change could actually cause an increase in glacial mass, either by locally reducing the temperature (Point 1), or by causing an increase in precipitation that overrides the effects of the increased temperatures on the glaciers (Point 2). QED: an increase in mass in Himalayan glaciers does not necessarily serve as evidence against climate change (although further study to figure out what is going on, causally, is certainly needed).

Regardless of why these glaciers may be growing, these data do not mean much with regards to the "catastrophic effects" of climate change, since alpine glaciers are a very minor player in the global system. If you find data that indicate that sea surface temperatures in equatorial regions are not actually rising, or that the greenland ice sheet is not losing mass, then we may have to reevaluate the "catastrophic projections." Until then, I'll stick with this highly scientific prediction: We're screwed.

Nice summary Jon, and quite accurate on all accounts....
Thanks

Shawn Mitchell wrote:Reported here: theregister.co.uk/2012/04/1… This is another item that raises questions about catastrophic projections associated with the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

And the register is a highly respected scientific journal, so it makes sense that a single publication there would contradict decades of already established science...

I would say your title is misleading (as is the Register's), based on the story I read yesterday from the BBC.

The study cited relates to data from the Karakorum only, and seems to have a number of uncertainties associated with how the data is collected and interpreted. Additionally, it only appears to be based on data from two points in time.

The BBC story says that the majority of the Himalaya is seeing shrinking glaciers, and this data should be considered an anomaly from the trends in the region.

The Register seems to be pushing a slant here.

I will now demonstrate the time-honored "yeah, but still" method that one can use to win *every* argument! It has been used for centuries by teenage girls who can assuredly attest that they're never wrong! The technique begins with the "yeah" -- in which I admit, implicitly, "Ah, yes, you're completely correct and I agree with you". Then, comes the tricky "...but still" part. This is where you completely change the subject. Watch closely folks:

Jon Moen wrote:Oh my...then a whole bunch of "science-y" talk with your big words and Elite-ist propaganda.

Then I could say: "Yes, Jon, but it's quite chilly today and therefore global warming is wrong"

Or, maybe:
"Yeah, but personally, I like warm weather"

Or, if you're feeling particularly sassy, I suggest Conservapedia and go with something like:
"Yeah, but all science is wrong anyway. For example, this: conservapedia.com/Counterex… which MUST be true 'cause it says so right there on the left side of the page that it's 'trustworthy'!!"

• *

See, I *totally* just won that argument didn't I?

The only known counterarguments (also used by teenage girls) are "So's your FACE" and "Well, I was just sayin'...no need to get angry about it" though, those must be used cautiously as they can end poorly.

Cheers,
Adam

DmB wrote: And the register is a highly respected scientific journal, so it makes sense that a single publication there would contradict decades of already established science...

The Register was only reporting on a journal article from Nature-Geoscience (Impact Factor:10.3) and the Primary Investigator (PI) was University of Colorado at Boulder physics Prof. John Wahr.

BTW, Anthropogenic climate change is not "established", only theorized...

Edit to add: @ddriver
"The study cited relates to data from the Karakorum only..."

Karakoram only? The Karakorum region contains around 50% of the glaciers in the Himalayas.

"The BBC story says that the majority of the Himalaya is seeing shrinking glaciers, and this data should be considered an anomaly from the trends in the region"

Which is the anomaly?
The previous study analyzed data from a small percentage of low elevation glaciers and extrapolated throughout the region to reach their conclusions.

AJS wrote:I will now demonstrate the time-honored "yeah, but still" method that one can use to win *every* argument! ... Cheers, Adam

Sometimes a simple stun gun works just as well.

youtube.com/watch?v=JbpNVcg…

daniel arthur wrote: BTW, Anthropogenic climate change is not "established", only theorized...

Hmmm. Perhaps you are confused with what the word theory means in the context of science. General relativity is a theory. Gravity is a theory. But you still fall and go splat when you jump off a bridge, no?

In science, theory is a strong word. I think what you were trying to argue is that anthropogenic is only a hypothesis. However, you were actually correct when you said its a theory....which means it is actually pretty well established. And yes, anthropogenic climate change is well established.

It's a standard "talking point"--climate change is just a theory.

Funny, if you look at the trajectory of the "debate" on climate change, it strangely follows the exact arc of the "debate" over tobacco's effects...delay any action long enough you can milk the market for as much cash as possible, then begrudgingly admit the ill effects after decades of windfall profits.

Vanity Fair did a great piece about a lobbyist once employed by the tobacco firms...and guess where he ended his career? Working for petro-business..."rebutting" climate change.

Science denying...it's the new paradigm.

Anthropogenic climate change is most certainly true, but you have to also consider cosmological influences.

Cyclical changes (and perhaps non cyclical-at least in human time scales) in the sun can have a huge and relatively quick impact on weather.

The Earth's magnetosphere is also changing. Does that lead to weather changes? It can leave us more vulnerable to CMEs from X class solar flares.

This one is being studied and debated: an increase in cosmic rays can cause more clouds. That is mind boggling-super novas and black hole events giving us more storms for powder skiing!

coppolillo wrote:rebutting" climate change. Science denying...it's the new paradigm.

Climate's been changing ever since there has been a climate, and long before there was tobacco. Nothing new here.

what's the problem?

what climber out there wouldn't want to pull their mastercraft up to Super Crack for a belay off the bow?

bunch of leftist-ocean-haters anywayz.......

(my kid asked me just the other day why there were so many sea-shells at the creek.....good stuff.)

@J. Albers:
Perhaps I should digress and clear up my statement:

Anthropogenic climate change is a theory. It has been tested and some parts hold true. We pump tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and sure we create a "green house effect", science supports it. Contributing the cyclical change of the climate soley to mankind?
Not supported by science.

I should have said:
antropogenic effect on local climates? supported by science.
Man made climate change which is going to raise sea levels and destroy the earth? Not supported by science, or even scientific models.

thanks Shawn. always a pleasure.

Luke Skyrocker wrote:Anthropogenic climate change is most certainly true, but you have to also consider cosmological influences. Cyclical changes (and perhaps non cyclical-at least in human time scales) in the sun can have a huge and relatively quick impact on weather. The Earth's magnetosphere is also changing. An increase in cosmic rays can cause more clouds.

Lots of misunderstood content in that series of statements. Solar cycle influences are (and have been for quite some time) taken into account by scientists working on the theory of anthropogenic climate change.

J. Albers wrote: Lots of misunderstood content in that series of statements. Solar cycle influences are (and have been for quite some time) taken into account by scientists working on the theory of anthropogenic climate change.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/16dec_giantbreach/

public.web.cern.ch/public/e…

Science can be corrupted, but even when it is pure, there is much that is not understood.

J. Albers wrote: Solar cycle influences are (and have been for quite some time) taken into account by scientists working on the theory of anthropogenic climate change.

Except for the scientists/political activists on the UN comission studying climate change.

daniel arthur wrote:@J. Albers: Perhaps I should digress and clear up my statement: Anthropogenic climate change is a theory. It has been tested and some parts hold true. We pump tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and sure we create a "green house effect", science supports it.

You are correct here.

daniel arthur wrote: Contributing the cyclical change of the climate soley to mankind? Not supported by science.

Correct. But I have the feeling that you are trying to slyly imply that the cyclical effects other than the human one are as important or more important than the human influence...which is not correct.

daniel arthur wrote: I should have said: antropogenic effect on local climates? supported by science.

This is not actually true. We are still working out the regional impacts problem. One might even be able to argue that many of the regional impacts are still in the hypothesis stage, though some regional impacts are getting more certain (hello there Arizona, hope you like the desert).

daniel arthur wrote: Man made climate change which is going to raise sea levels and destroy the earth? Not supported by science, or even scientific models.

Sure okay. When have climate scientists (no, Al Gore doesn't count) ever made any comments about the Earth being destroyed? And rising sea levels? Well, that is likely going to be a problem. And if you don't think so, perhaps you should ask the people that live in the Maldives how the feel about the effects of rising sea-levels.

danulu wrote: Except for the scientists/political activists on the UN comission studying climate change.

Absolutely false. Sigh....have you actually read the scientific assessment? Obviously not. Solar cycle influences have been a well established portion of the field of "climate science" for over 30 years.