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)
Pamela (17:15:15) Last time I checked the Himalayan range was some 1,500 miles long. The glaciers in discussion are towards the far western end. Your concept of “neighboring valleys” must be quite a broad one. Just like some states in our country can experience drought while neighboring ones don’t so it is with a large mountain chains’ valleys. As The global climate changes, weather patterns are expected to shift.
One theorized shift is for mountains on the windward side of ranges, that traditionally receive the bulk of the precipitation, to receive even more precipitation (warmer air holding more water and all, but still releasing the bulk of it as it passes over a 20,000’+ range). This effect is expected to be significantly greater on the windward side than farther leeward. Another effect is that differing amounts of rain and snow are expected to fall in different areas due to shifting of jet streams, Hadley cells, etc. This accounts for some glaciers behaving differently than others.
You give me undue credit. This is not my idea, but that of the scientists I cited. Nor were my citations actually a true review, as they were very limited.
‘Mark Fawcett’ this site was pumping the whole ‘volcanoes are melting the arctic’ line last year. Skepticism is being able to do the basic maths to work out the energy required and being skeptical that it was coming from undetected volcanoes. Not reading about a volcano in the arctic and spinning wildley improbable suppositions.
Flights of fancy do not a science make. RC may not be ‘unbaised’ but it is a sceince site that largely focuses on very widely accepted science.
Pielke Snrs blog is what an AGW skeptical science blog looks like.
NS (23:36:10) :
“You mean they actually went up there and took a look-see?
What kind of climate science is that?!?”
The guys who did the study aren’t ‘climate scientists’ – they are geologists.
QED!
Smokey, you obviously don’t really understand what climate is (still), or what your graphs mean. Let’s explain each one:
1. The data in this graph actually shows an upward trend in temperatures of 0.1°C per decade over the period chosen.
2. This one stops before the most recent data. None the less, the data shows an upward trend
3. This graph actually shows you that you can’t measure climate change over short time periods. Clearly you didn’t understand this, but what you think this graph indicates is not clear.
4. A graph that arbitrarily begins in 2002, and arbitrarily ends in late 2008… what use is that supposed to be, exactly?
5. A comparison between two arbitrary months out of 360 in the record – again, what use is that supposed to be, exactly?
You seem desperate to believe that global temperatures are not rising, even to the extent of posting evidence that you’re wrong and failing to understand that it contradicts you. Why is this?
RW,
Since you seem to believe you’re so smart and I’m so stupid, why don’t you prove it by making a prediction? Predict when your HE-RO Al Gore will debate his cockamamie conjecture. Or when Gavin the midget will debate Viscount Monckton again, after Schmidt’s last hard spanking. Since you’re so smart and all. Show us with a prediction.
BTW, chart #1 shows declining temps over most of the past decade [prior to that there was warming]. So who are we supposed to believe? You?? Or our lyin’ eyes? Same with chart #2, which shows current temps not much different than 1979-80 temps. The planet hasn’t warmed noticeably in thirty years. And so on, with the rest. Where is your god now?
RW, the planet is laughing in your face, and all you can do is bluster that you’re right and everyone else is wrong. The basic debunked hypothesis is that anthropogenic CO2 [about 3% of total CO2] will cause runaway global warming and climate catastrophe.
That might be believable — if the planet’s temperature was rising right along with the increase in CO2. But it’s not, no matter how much you wish it was.
Planet Earth gets the last word. And she says you’re wrong.
That was pretty beneath you, Smokey. You should really apologize.
Reply: I would normally agree, but I vaguely remember that it was Gavin who said his team lost the I squared debate partially because the opposing side was taller. ~ ctm
Reply 2: Ah here it is:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/adventures-on-the-east-side/comment-page-2/
~ ctm
RW (09:12:54) :
Smokey, you obviously don’t really understand what climate is (still), or what your graphs mean. Let’s explain each one:
1. The data in this graph actually shows an upward trend in temperatures of 0.1°C per decade over the period chosen.
Using a linear trend for data that is either non-stationary/chaotic or cyclical provides a meaningless trend. Smokey may not know what climate is, but you certainly do not understand statistics.
2. This one stops before the most recent data. None the less, the data shows an upward trend
Again, meaningless.
3. This graph actually shows you that you can’t measure climate change over short time periods. Clearly you didn’t understand this, but what you think this graph indicates is not clear.
Really? Why not? What is the proper length? There are dozens if not hundreds of cycles present in the temperature record so any length “trend” is just as arbitrary as the next. Why don’t we use a length of 100,000 years? I’ll tell you why: because the trend doesn’t go the way YOU want it to go.
4. A graph that arbitrarily begins in 2002, and arbitrarily ends in late 2008… what use is that supposed to be, exactly?
Just as arbitrary as any other beginning and end point YOU choose. So what’s the difference? Because you pick a length that fits your hypothesis, that’s the difference.
5. A comparison between two arbitrary months out of 360 in the record – again, what use is that supposed to be, exactly?
You’re like a hypocrite, aren’t you?
You seem desperate to believe that global temperatures are not rising, even to the extent of posting evidence that you’re wrong and failing to understand that it contradicts you. Why is this?
No, you seem desperate for temperatures to be rising, why? Ask yourself this: would you prefer temperatures to be rising, or would you prefer them to be falling? Why? If you prefer them to be falling, are you prepared for the consequences of a cooler planet? I’m not, nor do I think the rest of the world is. I prefer them to be rising because contrary to the gloom and doom echo chamber members such as you constantly put forth, a warmer planet is a more productive planet.
Mark
I should add, even random data with stationary statistics will yield trends one way or another, not that I expect RW would understand why.
Mark
[url=http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_kfG8pUItVjU/Sn8mJZeY-LI/AAAAAAAAAio/D3U3mGHRIEU/s1600-h/ThroughTheMagnifyingGlass.jpg]Through the looking glass[/url]
Another way of looking at it[url=http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_kfG8pUItVjU/Sn8mJZeY-LI/AAAAAAAAAio/D3U3mGHRIEU/s1600-h/ThroughTheMagnifyingGlass.jpg]here[/url].
Gavin acknowledging that Crichton was taller (he was taller than most people) is no call for calling Gavin a “midget”, which is a derogatory term in any sense.
Reply: WAS taller. He has passed away. ~ ctm
Umm, yeah, I said “was”, twice.
You still think it was ok for Smokey to say that? I get the distinct impression that if something like that was said about Anthony, an apology would be demanded.
Reply: First, have you read what they call Anthony at RC with no apologies? Second, by editing, censoring, misrepresenting posts by Anthony and others, Gavin has earned whatever derision, be it petty or not, that is directed at him. By whining that he lost the debate because the audience was too stupid and Crichton was too tall earns him the right to be referred to in the manner in which Smokey described him. The rules of decorum here generally prohibit attacks between posters here. Saying insulting things about well known people (I would not call Gavin a celebrity) is generally not prohibited. ~ ctm
The rules of decorum here generally prohibit attacks between posters here. Saying insulting things about well known people (I would not call Gavin a celebrity) is generally not prohibited. ~ ctm
——————————–
Let us remember that this forum allows people too make libelous attacks claiming that a group of politicians and scientists have an ongoing criminal conspiracy to defraud governments and people around the world and to impose (depending on the poster) various forms of totalitarian government.
You are not supposed to say anything upsetting to the regulars here but you can claim scientists (who post on other blogs) are part of criminal conspiracies.
Offcourse I would not want to discourage this. Someone in Britain may one day use British libel laws to challange this sort of thing published round here.
Reply: You’re characterization of “..say anything upsetting to the regulars here..” is false. Passers by and contrarians to this site are defended to the same or greater extent than regulars as long as they remain polite and respectful. ~ ctm
dorlomin:
And other posters disagree stating all that is necessary to explain behavior is confirmation bias, groupthink, big egos, funding bias, and perhaps a smidge of postmodern advocacy science theory. No conspiracy necessary. This is called a D I S C U S S I O N.
dorlomin (08:31:52) :
‘Mark Fawcett’ this site was pumping the whole ‘volcanoes are melting the arctic’ line last year. Skepticism is being able to do the basic maths to work out the energy required and being skeptical that it was coming from undetected volcanoes. Not reading about a volcano in the arctic and spinning wildley improbable suppositions.
From memory I recall it was the antarctic but I may well be wrong…I also seem to remember that there was plenty of healthy debate on the comments on exactly the subject you mention. (As a side note, there’s no need to stick my name in single-quotes; I only did yours as I guessed it wasn’t your real name – if it is then my bad.)
Flights of fancy do not a science make. RC may not be ‘unbaised’ but it is a sceince site that largely focuses on very widely accepted science.
Pielke Snrs blog is what an AGW skeptical science blog looks like.
We agree on something :o) – without wishing to speak on behalf of Mr. Watts, I don’t think WUWT claims to be a science blog per se – the subtitle says it all. It is however a good place to come for some lively debate, some interesting articles and a launching pad to go and check on the science.
Best regards,
Mark
Jeff Alberts (12:00:19),
You’re right, that was unfair. I apologize.
Reply: Ok Jeff now I have to recant just about everything I said as well. Damn you Smokey! ~ ctm.
My apologies to ctm, too.
“From memory I recall it was the antarctic but I may well be wrong”
There was also a post on the Arctic, the post that incidently brought this place to my attention as it was suddenly turning up all over the place.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/25/surprise-explosive-volcanic-eruption-under-the-arctic-ice-found/
“Watts, I don’t think WUWT claims to be a science blog per se”
Well someone does.
“2008 Winner Best Science Blog”
Jeez
“No conspiracy necessary. This is called a D I S C U S S I O N”
Accuations of dishonest and conspiracy:
Denny (14:07:15) :
Isn’t amazing how Baum thinks that AGW is Science! Consensus is not Science and Science is not Consensus! By the late Michael Crichton…That it’s totally proven without a doubt! Wow! Good thing He isn’t a Scientist, or is he?? Either way He deserved this for it shows the real truth about what Scientists believe in many different fields…It’s a big HOAX!!!
Mike Bryant (14:20:03) :
For at least a year Anthony and others have been saying that the leadership of many scientific organizations did not represent the membership… finally the members themselves have had enough of the dishonesty…
Mike
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/30/american-chemical-society-members-revolting-against-their-editor-for-pro-agw-views/
The “global warming hoax” is an obvious fallacy, Ganahl said in a YouTube video posted Jan. 23.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/10/daily-kos-whips-up-an-email-campaign-agains-meteorologist-who-spoke-candidly-about-climate-change/
Other international scientists have called the manmade warming theory a “hoax,” a “fraud” and simply “not credible.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/20/national-post-thirty-years-of-warmer-temperatures-go-poof/
The IPCC uses the hoax of man made global warming to increase its power and that of a corrupt, anti-American United Nations that has proven itself impotent in combating world wide acts of terrorism, genocide in Sudan, the real threat of nuclear proliferation in the mid-east from Iran and Syria, or human rights violations in China and Africa
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/04/alleviate-world-hunger-produce-more-clean-carbon-dioxide/
Thank you, gentlemen. Let’s continue to rise above, and argue the facts…
Sorry for the diversion, folks.
As I said before
Sticking your fingers in your ears and going La La La doesn’t change the fact that the world is warming.
I don’t want it to be true. I hate it that it is true. I am as wary as the next man about undue influence from my government
But either you accept the science or you don’t; and if you don’t then you need to show why.
Pointing out stuff that has been debunked thoroughly is just a zombie lie. (you shoot it down and it gets back up again).
Read the IPCC reports (or at least the abstracts)
There is no commie conspiracy. This is not a tax grab, although it will cost money and plenty of it, but one way or the other life as we know it will change.
Regards
… and cancel the clown, too.
Has anyone read the Ganjoo & Koul article, and/or the Upadhyay 2009 article that it critiques? These concern the glacial geomorphology of just one glacier (Siachen). (I enjoyed both…glacial features were underplayed in long ago Arizona geology classrooms)
Per our authors: “Overwhelming field geomorphological evidences suggest poor respons of the Siachen glacier to global warming. The snout of the Siachen glacier…since 1995…an average retreat of 0.6m/yr.”
This article merely restates the previously discussed (Fowler & Archer 2005) healthiness of the glaciers in the NW Himalayas. And obscures the decline in the Eastern Himalayas.
qtrip (100:25:56) 11 Aug
Yes, this was bedtime non-sense: I didn’t have time to research the quote. This Siachen glacier is the site of the highest (21,000ft) battlefield on earth.
“Since 1984, the Indian army has been in physical possession of most of the heights on the Saltoro Range west of the Siachen Glacier, while the Pakistan army has held posts at lower elevations of western slopes of the spurs emanating from the Saltoro ridgeline. The Indian army has secured its position on the ridgeline.”
qtrip continued
For you: “it is learnt that the Indian army is launching a massive clean-up operation as part of its ‘Green Siachen, Clean Siachen’ plan. The Indian army will take help from the air force to lift garbage from the glacier…Due to much lower activity on the Pakistani side, western glaciers are stable…While vehicular traffic from the Indian side and heat generated from activities on this 21,000ft high glacier have led to unprecedented melting and diminishing of this 72-km long glacier.” March 18, 2007
For me: How did China get into this?
Lindsay H (103:12:26) 11 Aug
Might the Greenland and Antarctica generalization also apply to the few high latitude glaciers that are expanding?
Increasing evaporation over warmer polar seas leads to increasing snowfall on land.
Franz Josef & Fox glaciers, New Zealand
PIO XI glacier, Chili
Perito Moreno glacier, Argentina
Briksdal glacier, Norway
Smokey
The planet is warming. I thought that even the most hard line sticking-fingers-in-ears-going-La-La-La had stopped denying that it is, in fact, warming. And had moved on to arguing about why it was warming.
The planet is warming. I am not deluded, and you have your fingers in your ears going la la la.
Regards
It’s most likely warmed since the LIA, but by how much, and what causes, are still unknown. And that’s a fact.