Weather variations, not global warming cause glacier melt
From the The Hindu, 9 August 2009
excerpts:
New Delhi (PTI): Himalayan glaciers, including the world’s highest battlefield Siachen, are melting due to variations in weather and not because of global warming, Jammu University scientists have claimed.
…
Geologists R K Ganjoo and M N Koul of Jammu University’s Regional Centre for Field Operations and Research of Himalayan Glaciology visited the Siachen glacier to record changes in its snout last summer.
“To our surprise, the Siachen glacier valley does not preserve evidences of glaciation older than mid-Holocene, suggesting that the glacier must have advanced and retreated simultaneously several times in the geological past, resulting in complete obliteration and modification of older evidences,” they said reporting their findings in ‘Current Science’.
Ganjoo and Koul dubbed as “hype” some earlier studies which suggested that the Himalayan glaciers were melting fast and caused serious damage to the Himalayan ecosystem.
There is sufficient field and meteorological evidence from the other side of Karakoram mountains that corroborate the fact that glaciers in this part of the world are not affected by global warming, they said.
…
Ganjoo said that the east part of the Siachen glacier showed faster withdrawal of the snout that is essentially due to ice-calving, a phenomenon that holds true for almost all major glaciers in the Himalayas and occurs irrespective of global warming.
…
Ganjoo contended the Siachen glacier shows hardly any retreat in its middle part and thus defies the “hype” of rapid melting.
The research findings by R.K. Ganjoo and M.N. Koul are published in today’s issue of CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 97, NO. 3, 10 AUGUST 2009 and are available at http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/aug102009/309.pdf
(h/t to Benny Peiser)
This evidence will be ignored by the warministas, the WWF, FoE, all the greenies and the media.
No doubt will be accused of “cherry picking” (sigh).
There is sufficient field and meteorological evidence from the other side of Karakoram mountains that corroborate the fact that glaciers in this part of the world are not affected by global warming, they said.
Yes, indeed, and simply because there is no such a thing called “global warming”, at least in the real world. There are many global warmings in computer games (“models”) and “adjusted statistics”.
Count me as not surprised in the slightest with the results of this study.
I can already hear the warmistas/warmongers/warmorons screaming: “But they’re only geologists – they’re not ‘climate scientists”!!!!!”
Those pesky glaciers, no doubt funded by ‘big-oil’ to not retreat so much…the nerve.
Whilst I dont believe in runaway Global Warming to AGW, I think we must recognise that some countries have a vested interest now, in not believing in Global Warming. India would be one.
The evidence here cannot be dismissed lightly, but we should acknowledge that the government that may have sponsored these scientists, might not welcome undue pressure to curb their own carbon emissions.
Golly gee, weather changes over time. Color me shocked. Fits in nicely with the evidence uncovered by other melting glaciers all over the world, too.
OK class, for extra points on your mid term: What is the primary cause of glacier advance and retreat?
a) Sublimation
b) Precipitation changes at higher altitudes
c) Global warming
d) The Gore Effect
Well this Himalayas report might just explain what this other report from the BBC is all about:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8189000/8189937.stm
And then there’s this one:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8189549.stm
Someone ought to tell them that the potential food shortage wouldn’t be so bad if they warmists would quit growing food crops for meant for biofuels rather than bellies.
Dave (07:50:06) :
I’m not having a go especially since I actually read your first sentence and bore it in mind to the end of your statement but you are about to get a torrent of;
“Are you saying America and Europe don’t have a political agenda in continuing to promot the AGW belief!”
Just an observation.
That was clearly meant to be promote!
Dave (07:50:06) :
Could be a fair point Dave but I guess you could also reword your post to something along the lines of:
“… I think we must recognise that some countries have a vested interest now, in believing/not believing (delete your choice) in Global Warming. (Insert the country of your choice) would be one.
… but we should acknowledge that the government that may have sponsored these scientists, might welcome/not welcome (delete your choice) undue pressure to curb their own carbon emissions.”
Isn’t it: e) — Ablation?
The temperature on Mt. Kilimanjaro remains steady as the glacier retreats, or so I read. The Himalayas surely follow the pattern.
I understand that temperate glaciers are melting/shrinking. What I don’t understand is why that, in and of itself, is a problem. Now, if ice sheets were advancing into populated areas, I could definitely see that as a problem.
Smokey (07:51:32) : Answer is “a” 🙂
This has to be the most sadly hilarious glacier story printed. It is absolute proof that the crisis of global warming is “man-made”.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1203500/In-pictures-How-global-warming-changing-face-northern-hemisphere.html
The glacier is growing madly, choking a lagoon with ice, yet this is all claimed to be from global warming. Here is on of the comments from a geologist on that story.
“I am a geologist who has worked frequently in Alaska for 45 years. I would like to state that the reason the lagoon is filling up with ice is that the glacier is apparently advancing towards the sea. Glaciers advance when snowfall increases and temperatures decline enough for the snow to remain throughout the year. Less snow melts than falls in the year. Glaciers recede when melting exceeds the amount of new ice that forms from each year’s accumulation of snow. I hope that your article was a test to see how many people would believe the ridiculous conclusion you presented. Better yet, I hope it was a joke. I am not laughing, however. I am only shocked that the advance of a glacier could be presented as “evidence” of global warming.”
Here is an article in The Times of India, March09, regarding their glaciers.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/No_threat_to_Gangotri/articleshow/2892632.cms
We are fed NONSENSE on every single angle of this fabricated crisis.
UK Sceptic (07:59:15) :
Hillary Benn – one of the screaming warmers – said:
“The food supply was currently secure but population growth and climate change could have an impact, he warned. ”
I agree with him but would say instead that population growth WILL have an impact – not COULD – WILL. (it’s a bit of a no brainer really that one.)
I also agree that climate change could have an impact. Especially if it gets colder… (I notice he didn’t say “global warming” so maybe it’s even getting through his skull.)
And I totally agree with your point about the absolute madness of growing crops for biofuel.
I’ve said before – why don’t all these AGW believers just give up their carbon profligate lifestyles and leave us normal people to live life as normal? After all, we don’t expect any other people to live by our religions (if we have any – personally, I don’t) so why should we have to live by theirs?
(Minor rant over…)
Dave (07:50:06) :
The evidence here cannot be dismissed lightly, but we should acknowledge that the government that may have sponsored these scientists, might not welcome undue pressure to curb their own carbon emissions.
Just as the state sponsored scientists in the U.S. are discouraged from producing work which might undermine the new regime’s tax policy ?
I had to dig up this oldie but goodie from Nat Geo. It’s from the heads I win, tails you lose department, i.e., glaciers melting – global warming; glaciers growing – global warming!
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060911-growing-glaciers.html
Smokey, I would have to pick B). (Changes in precipitation in the snow accumulation zone…to ablate or not to ablate)
Smokey:
A and B with Albedo thrown in. Then there is the Indian Ocean Dipole which is a natural multidecadal oscillation.
Dave (07:50:06) : said
“Whilst I dont believe in runaway Global Warming to AGW, I think we must recognise that some countries have a vested interest now, in not believing in Global Warming. India would be one.”
Sorry Dave, I don’t understand your logic here. India wants the transfer to them of very large sums of money and free technology to compensate for the efforts they are expected to make to reduce their own emissions and in order to ensure the blame for AGW is put firmly on the West.
Creating scientific reports that claim there is no AGW effect is entirely contrary to their interests as that reduces the liability and culpability of the west .
tonyb
Dave (07:50:06) :
“Whilst I dont believe in runaway Global Warming to AGW, I think we must recognise that some countries have a vested interest now, in not believing in Global Warming. India would be one.
The evidence here cannot be dismissed lightly, but we should acknowledge that the government that may have sponsored these scientists, might not welcome undue pressure to curb their own carbon emissions.”
You’ll have to forgive me not quite getting to grips with this one, Dave.
If there isn’t going to be any runaway global warming then the Indians don’t need to worry about their so-called “carbon emissions”.
And it seems quite reasonable that they should have “sponsored” that research if only because someone has to unless we have scientists who are independently wealthy and I have not met one of those in a long time.
Your suggestion must be:
The Indians don’t want to curb their carbon emissions.
They don’t want to be seen not to want to curb their carbom emissions.
So they send out a group of people to make up some story about glaciers.
And I thought I was a cynic!
“Weather variations, not global warming cause glacier melt”
You frequently make this sort of elementary mistake. This is not an either/or question. It makes as much sense to say what you’ve done as it would to say “Bald tyres, not high speeds cause road crashes”.
Reply: Why do you say “you” to Anthony when the article is just quoting a news item about a study? ~ ctm
rickM (08:20:50) noticed the word “primary” in the test question. He gets a gold star.