Some Of The World’s Largest Non-Polar Glaciers Are Expanding, Despite Global Warming

Energy

RTR4B6HY-e1502468054711

Trekkers and porters hike down the Baltoro glacier in the Karakoram mountain range in Pakistan September 7, 2014. Geographically, Pakistan is a climbers paradise. It rivals Nepal for the number of peaks over 7,000 meters and is home to the world’s second tallest mountain, K2, as well as four of the world’s 14 summits higher than 8,000 meters. In more peaceful times, northern Pakistan’s unspoilt beauty was a major tourist draw but the potentially lucrative industry has been blighted by years of violence. The number of expeditions has dwindled, wrecking communities dependant on climbing for income and starving Pakistan’s suffering economy of much-needed dollars. Picture taken September 7, 2014. REUTERS/Wolfgang Rattay (PAKISTAN – Tags: ENVIRONMENT SOCIETY BUSINESS EMPLOYMENT TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY TRAVEL) ATTENTION EDITORS – PICTURE 31 OF 32 FOR WIDER IMAGE STORY ‘K2 – THE SAVAGE MOUNTAIN’ SEARCH ‘RATTAY K2’ FOR ALL IMAGES – RTR4B6HY ∧

Some Of The World’s Largest Non-Polar Glaciers Are Expanding, Despite Global Warming

From The Daily Caller

Michael Bastasch

12:36 PM 08/11/2017

Some of the largest non-polar glaciers in the world are either stable or growing due to a “vortex” of cold air over a 1,200-mile section of the greater Himalayan mountain range in central Asia, according to a new study.

Climate models haven’t been able to reproduce the phenomenon, which is keeping Karakoram mountain range glaciers from melting like most of the world’s other glaciers, the study found.

“While most glaciers are retreating as a result of global warming, the glaciers of the Karakoram range in South Asia are stable or even growing,” Hayley Fowler, the study’s co-author and professor at Newcastle University, said in a statement.

Karakoram is one of the most heavily-glaciated areas of the world outside the poles, and boasts the world’s second- and third-largest non-polar glaciers. It’s also home to the world’s second-largest peak, K2 — Vertical Limit, anyone?

The study found that ‘anomalous cooling’ over Karakoram could have an impact on river flows, which are heavily dependent on ice melt. The call it the “Karakoram vortex.”

“Most climate models suggest warming over the whole region in summer as well as in winter,” Fowler said. “However, our study has shown that large-scale circulation is controlling regional variability in atmospheric temperatures, with recent cooling of summer temperatures.”

“This suggests that climate models do not reproduce this feature well,” Fowler said.

Fowler isn’t the first to wonder why Karakoram glaciers aren’t melting like the models predicted. Several studies have been published over the years asking the same question — what’s happening?

A 2014 study found climate models tended to over-predict warming over Karakoram, meaning they under-predicted snowfall in the region. The region gets colder westerly winds from Afghanistan, which is increasing winter snow. Other mountains are getting more rain.

Most other major glaciers are receding, according to Fowler, which only makes the case of Karakoram more interesting. It also shows the pitfalls of model predictions.

“But the circulation system is currently providing a dampening effect on global warming, reducing glacial melt in the Karakoram region and any change will have a significant effect on ice melt rates, which would ultimately affect river flows in the region,” Fowler said.

Follow Michael on Facebook and Twitter

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Advertisements

177 thoughts on “Some Of The World’s Largest Non-Polar Glaciers Are Expanding, Despite Global Warming

    • Gloateus maximus,
      Global warming is an observable long term event, your own graph shows an average increase over the years.
      Instead of kicking own goals you should stop cherry picking and talk to a scientist.

      • The world has been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age on the very long trend.

        But that is entirely natural. AGW asserts that CO2 causes extra warming. As the greatest additional CO2 emissions have been released with the industrialisation of China the warming ought to be the greatest in the last 20 years.

        Look at the evidence and try thinking like a scientist. That’s how to be a sceptic.

      • M Courtney…………Your explanation is superb; perhaps this one sentence “The world has been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age on the very long trend.” can be amended, as the cooling didn’t stop on a dime. J. Curry uses a figure of 300 years of current warming, which is well before the ‘END’ of the LIA. Suggest….’since the unwinding of the LIA’.

      • Scientists share their data and methods for others to check. Businessmen hoard their data and methods for profit. Haven’t seen much data sharing from all the so-called climate scientists. Did not Michael Mann refuse to provide data in court clainiming the data was proprietary?

      • WTF,

        For at least the past 3000 years, the long-term trend is down. For over 300 years, since the depths of the LIA during the Maunder Minimum, the short-term trend has been warming. But there are counter cycles within that secular trend. The counter cyclic cooling of the 1920s-40s interrupted the early and late 20th century warming cycles.

        The warming cycle of the early 20th century was practically identical to the late 20th century warming, while the early 18th century warming, coming out of the Maunder, lasted longer and warmed more than the late 20th century warming.

        So, it is indeed warmer today than 320 years ago and 160 years ago, at the end of the LIA. But it’s not warmer than 80 years ago, during the mid-20th century warming cycle.

        And the now trend is flat, hence no statistically significant warming at all in this century. The two peaks in that graph are both super El Ninos, and the other spike up in between them was a normal El Nino.

        Talk about own goals!

      • Gloateus,

        I can see why you live here in this echo chamber, have you tried running this info past some real scientists?

      • W: It isn’t here, but there’s an echo chamber out there, and they are preparing to adjust that bad data about “glacier growing” so as to match the can’t-be-wrong models. Please let us know when that echo becomes the voice in your head.

    • The models failed because the software used (IPCC’s product) flattens the areas and does not recognize anomalies like mountain ranges. There is a better product that does not do this and is more accurate and has predicted increases.

  1. “Some Of The World’s Largest Non-Polar Glaciers Are Expanding, Despite Global Warming”

    Despite?…No no no….”because of” surely?

    • Jones,
      Absolutely.

      Everything under heaven is ‘Because of globull warming’.

      The ice melting in my drink – August in London – CAGW.
      The Perseid meteorites – CAGW.
      Vanishing of the Loch Ness Monster since Tim Dinsdale’s film – CAGW.
      Liverpool conceding a very late goal against Watford, in the 1230 kick-off game yesterday – CAGW.
      The recession of the nebulae – CAGW.
      Me looking older than I did thirty years ago – CAGW.

      And you can probably fill in the next – even more gut-wrenchingly far-fetched – dozen yourselves!

      A marvellous thing this CAGW!.
      Which doesn’t exist – except in the belief systems of some ‘useful idiots’ – if such a phrase is still allowable; and in the machinations of the New World Order stalinists [no Capital S for them!].

      Auto

      • “Most climate models suggest warming over the whole region in summer as well as in winter,”

        Most? Surely they all do. Is she trying to suggest that some don’t? But if that was true then they would be showing that the glaciers aren’t melting wouldn’t they? Too much to admit that every model is wrong I suppose but then once you start lying you can end up in knots.

  2. This story can’t be true. Any weather/climate data that contradict the warming/doomsday narrative MUST BE FALSE. The Doomsday Priesthood has been thundering for an entire generation that everything is bad and getting worse. Every person of conscience is either engaging in ritual self-flagellation, pretending to give up the stuff they like, or both, in order to signal their virtue to each other. They can’t be wrong because 97% of all big shots agree. Don’t upset the (organic) applecart by suggesting there are any wrinkles in the doomsday scenario. It’s not something you discuss among the right kind of people.

      • Another meaningless post Define ALL the climate scientists. ( Those that study causeation, not attribution)

        Having defined and listed them, show me the document where they state that human CO2 emissions are catastrophic to human life on earth.

      • The real word of climate science denies the real world of ordinary men, who still have to put t he central heating in in August in the UK

      • You dont get the null do you, the scientists have to prove it, and they have not even come close

      • “I think Tom was being sarcastic”
        It is impossible to tell because many people here say pretty much same thing in all seriousness.

      • And in terms of the world’s total ice balance, montane glaciers aren’t a pimple on the posterior of ice sheets, especially the East Antarctic, repository of most of the world’s fresh water. It is growing.

        Wegener’s 1930 grave on the Greenland Ice Sheet is under more than 100 meters of ice.

      • Just read about Wegener in wikipedia. Such a man. Such a pioneering giant. He makes today’s climate scientists look like nothing. The consensus was firmly against his theory of continental drift. He was right, and not by accident. He was ahead of everybody else. We need to keep in mind that continental drift was not the major point of his career, but an incidental discovery of a man trying to understand geology and meteorology. It is cause for reflection that he lost his life in Greenland bringing supplies to people in his survey team, and he fought on the Western Front and was wounded twice in WW I.
        And, they do say in wikipedia that his grave is under 300 feet of ice and snow. I suppose that is due to increased precipitation from global warming.
        His generation were real men. I doubt they needed safe spaces.

    • The winter snow fields in the Sierra’s were at a relatively low minimum 2 years ago, but this summer, they are as large as they ever get. Mammoth Mountain shut down for the season just last weekend!

    • WTF

      You are getting pwned. Anything else you need to know?

      The models all predict warming will continue inexorably and the glaciers will ALL retreat, flooding Florida etc. Well, most models were written and run since 2000. So far they are terrible at predicting anything.

      Can we say they are wrong? They surely are not right. For a model to be useful it has to, now and then, predict something that happens. That’s what they are for. The premise is that more CO2 equals higher temperatures everywhere. It doesn’t work like that.

      The models predict temporal and spatial inhomogenities. Fine, but in toto, they suck at predicting anything. Frankly I am disappointed. I expected at least a few modelers would come up with something that would give predictions that were broadly in line with measurements, particular in the fabled hot spot, something fundamental to the physics of GHG’s. What is in error on its fundamentals cannot be right in general except by accident, in which case it is not really a model, just prestidigitation: press a button, get a digit, invent an excuse.

      • Crispin in alternative science land,

        I’m getting “pwned” ( or do you mean covfefeed ? ) by armchair experts, who’s stuck here unable to get any evidence past peer review ?
        Try engaging the scientific community.

      • love to engage the scientific community but they are already employed by governments for whom climate reality is an inconvenient truth.

      • WTF

        Who are you referring to WRT getting published? Me? Stop guessing.

        Are you engaging in cite-o-logy? Show me a peer-reviewed paper describing a climate model that has the CO2 concentration matching the temperatures for the past 30 years. Show me a paper describing a climate model without a tropospheric hot spot. It is in the hot spot you can warm yourself burning alternative science papers.

      • Crispin,
        It’s not me you need to convince, it’s the real world outside this bunker.
        Just put us out of our collective misery and provide evidence like a good scientist.

    • When a km thick glacier inevitably bears down on Manhattan, the rest of the East Coast, Northern Europe, Canada and Russia, people will only wish CO2 has as big an effect as claimed by the IPCC. Unfortunately, there’s not enough carbon on the planet to keep the next ice age from occurring.

      • evil: why would a glacier descend over
        manhattan?
        that makes no sense at all, given
        physics.
        the next ice age is toast.
        already ruined.
        past ice ages ended when
        co2 ~ 280 ppm.
        we’re much above that now
        with milankovitch factors now implying
        cooling.
        but there is no
        cooling, is there?

      • Crackers,
        What do you think happened during the last ice age? I’m not saying this is happening now, but no amount of CO2 will prevent it from happening again. If you think otherwise, then you’re failing to grasp the underlying physics.

        You seem to be misled by the absurdly high sensitivity claimed by the IPCC. The physics tells us that the sensitivity must be less than the lower limit claimed by the IPCC and that there’s not enough carbon on the planet to prevent the next ice age from occurring.

        Consider Mars, which on a molar basis has far, far more atmospheric CO2 than Earth, yet it remains a very cold place.

        Past ice ages did not end at CO2==280 ppm, they ended at far low levels and the warmer temperatures increased planet wide biomass, causing the steady state atmospheric CO2 to slowly rise as new forests grew, as is clearly indicated in the ice core data, where changes in CO2 FOLLOW changes in temperature by centuries. BTW, the 280 ppm was at the end of the LIA which was about 20K after the end of the last real ice ice.

        The Milankovitch forcing factors indicate that the next ice age is still thousands of years in the future. Of course by then, climate scientists will have regained their senses and accept the true nature of the climate sensitivity and the inevitability of the next ice age giving the world time to prepare, although this will most likely mean evacuating most of the NE US, Europe, Canada and Russia.

        The next ice age is actually far enough away that we will have run out of fossil fuels and out biggest concern will be how to pump up atmospheric CO2 to keep agriculture from crashing.

    • You can’t win! That’s it! Goalposts are continually moved or taken away.WTF is brainwashed- just like so many others. Oh, appeal to authority. We have relied on so-called “experts” in so many fields and they invariably fail. Once again the failure to prove attribution is the REASON that many are sceptical. Where is the proof.

      • For instance, Chile’s Pio XI Glacier, largest in the Southern Hemisphere. is growing. The Moreno Glacier, Argentina’s largest, is too.

      • My impression is that about half the montane glaciers are receding and half staying the same or growing. However many of those shrinking are little, while a lot of the biggest ones are growing. In terms of area and volume, the net net might well be stasis in this century.

      • “Gloateus August 12, 2017 at 4:48 pm
        Glaciologists of course in effect get paid to be alarmists.”

        Today a Glaciologist goes into the field today wanting to save the ice and the earth. They more or less are paid to be alarmists

      • Gloateus,
        Where did you get the impression that half were receding and half were stable or growing? We can check this out quite easily.
        http://wgms.ch/latest-glacier-mass-balance-data/

        For 2016, I counted 31 growing (positive mass balance) and 128 shirinking (negative mass balance). The overall mass balance is negative.

        This page shows number of advancing vs retreating glaciers by length over several decades. It shows nearly all currently retreating.
        http://www.grid.unep.ch/glaciers/pdfs/5.pdf

      • seaice1 writes

        Where did you get the impression that half were receding and half were stable or growing? We can check this out quite easily.
        http://wgms.ch/latest-glacier-mass-balance-data/

        I took a look at that reference and cant seem to find data on the Karakoram glaciers described as “the world’s second- and third-largest non-polar glaciers.”. Either that’s a fairly substantial …oversight or I’m missing the references by name. Can you help seaice?

      • seaice writes

        Where did you get the impression that half were receding and half were stable or growing? We can check this out quite easily.
        http://wgms.ch/latest-glacier-mass-balance-data/

        OK, now that I’m home I can do a little more research and no, the second (Siachen) and third (Biafo) largest glaciers aren’t part of the “world” glacier monitoring service. These ones from the OP are increasing in mass.

        How about the largest glacier, the Lambert Glacier in Antarctica? Nope, not that one either. My first reference found suggests that one is increasing in mass too.

        https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02879518

        So when you say “check this quite easily” then no. Your link has not shown that at all.

    • WTF August 12, 2017 at 7:13 pm

      Dubious for the reasons I gave.

      Seaice,

      Your “references” are cherry-picked, selective packs of lies, as well pointed out by Tim.

      Same as all Warmunista garbage. Not even junk science. Not science at all, but self-serving advocacy.

  3. “Vertical Limit”? Good grief. My favorite K2 movie is a documentary titled “K2, Siren of the Himalaya” . Lovely cinematography, a light hearted story of an attempt by some really hard climbers.

    • Air temperature is far from the only variable that goes into glacial waxing and waning. More moisture in the air can mean more snow to turn into ice. Less wind can mean less wasting. Cutting forests downslope can also reduce precipitation.

      Sea level, coastal glaciers are different animals from high altitude glaciers and ice fields. Cirques differ from valley glaciers.

      At the grossest possible scale however, glaciers did advance on balance during the LIA, despite drier and windier conditions, and have on balance receded during the Current Warm Period, which began in the mid-19th century.

      • The biggest effect is whether more snow falls during the winter than can melt during the summer. The summer melt rates seem relatively constant while the winter growth rates are far more variable, not so much because of temperature variability, but because of precipitation variability.

      • More unmeasurable variables make it harder to anticipate outcomes in a complex system of any kind — let alone a system as complex as global climate. Sports are about as simple as systems get. Sports are time & space constrained, with a fixed number of players. Yet how often does the favorite team at the beginning of a season end up winning the championship? And those predictions are made only months in advance. What’s the chance climate can be predicted, or tweaked, a century in advance?

        A warning by Hall of Fame catcher Yogi Berra is in order here: “It’s hard to make predictions, especially about the future.”

    • Generally true, but depends on whether the precip be snow or rain. Also, if you have a half inch of snow but an “inch” of wind, mass will wither.

    • Beringia, for instance, was largely ice free during the Last Glacial Maximum because of both dry air and windiness.

      • Hence, IPCC’s spurious assumption of feedback effect from water vapor itself vaporizes.

        Thus, at best a doubling of CO2 will produce 1.2 degrees C of warming. But that ignores known negative feedback effects, so that a more reasonable range is 0,7 degrees C to 1.7 degrees C per doubling, with net negative feedbacks more likely than not, ie 0.7 to 1.0 degrees C.

        This is a far cry from the unjustified, unphysical, evidence-free IPCC range of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C.

      • Crackers, even the IPCC admits their understanding of cloud feedback is poor. Please show your ” obvious” WV feedback.

      • Crackers,

        Basic physics tells us that without GHG’s the Earth albedo would be the same as the Moon (0.12) and the average temperature would be about 270K. Adding GHG’s and clouds DECREASES the temperature by about 15C due to the albedo effects of ice and clouds, while the warming from GHG’s and clouds increases the temperature by 33C. The consensus conveniently ignores the 15C of cooling, all of which is due to albedo effects from liquid and solid water which can not be separated from the GHG warming effect of water vapor which accounts for about 2/3 of the 33C of warming.

        Water has a NET effect of 22C – 15C = 7C, while all the rest of the GHG’s and clouds combined have a net effect of about 11C. The net effect of water is nearly a wash, where the cooling offsets most of the warming, although a little more warming arises as part of the 11C attributed to clouds absorbing surface energy and re-emitting it back down to the surface.

        Can you see how physics tells us how preposterous the claim is that doubling CO2 increases the surface temperature by 3C, even with the red herring of water vapor amplification?

      • evil: sorry, but adding ghgs does not
        cause a temperature decrease.

        the baseline isn’t relevant to agw. it is what it is, and
        it was reproduced by lacis et al in science (2010).

        the question is the warming from the baseline. it’s
        now 1 c, warming at 0.2 c/dec. more over land. more over
        nh land. that’s a lot of warming.

      • evil wrote-
        “Water has a NET effect of 22C – 15C = 7C, while all the rest of the GHG’s and clouds combined have a net effect of about 11C”

        perhaps you mean water vapor, and not “water?”

        in any case, it’s not this simple.
        it takes both w.v. and co2 to put the
        earth’s avg temp above the freezing pt of
        water.
        physically, it’s meaningless
        to remove one without
        considering the impact of the other
        or the resulting change in feedback from
        ice-albedo.

      • Crackers,
        Basic physics tells us that without GHG’s the Earth albedo would be the same as the Moon (0.12) and the average temperature would be about 270K. Adding GHG’s and clouds DECREASES the temperature by about 15C due to the albedo effects of ice and clouds, while the warming from GHG’s and clouds increases the temperature by 33C. The consensus conveniently ignores the 15C of cooling, all of which is due to albedo effects from liquid and solid water which can not be separated from the GHG warming effect of water vapor which accounts for about 2/3 of the 33C of warming.

        Water has a NET effect of 22C – 15C = 7C, while all the rest of the GHG’s and clouds combined have a net effect of about 11C. The net effect of water is nearly a wash, where the cooling offsets most of the warming, although a little more warming arises as part of the 11C attributed to clouds absorbing surface energy and re-emitting it back down to the surface.

        Can you see how physics tells us how preposterous the claim is that doubling CO2 increases the surface temperature by 3C, even with the red herring of water vapor amplification?

      • Crackers,

        “it’s not this simple. it takes both w.v. and co2 to put the earth’s avg temp above the freezing pt of water.”

        With only water and no CO2, CH4 or O3, the average temperature of the planet would certainly be well above freezing. Considering 1/3 of the warming to be due to GHG’s other than water, the average temp would be about 277K which is still above freezing. You seem to be embracing the argument that the climate is too complex to be quantified by the simple laws of physics. Arm waving illusionary complexity doesn’t work here, you need to be much more precise. And BTW, the simple laws of physics like COE and the SB Law are immutable and MUST apply..

        Without GHG’s, the average temperature would be about 270K and while his is below freezing, the tropics will get more than enough solar energy for liquid water to exist. Even if you presume that without GHG’s (which includes water), the albedo would still be about 0.3, liquid water will still exist in the tropics and even in mid latitudes during the summer. While the planet might get an AVERAGE of only 240 W/m^2, the equator will see an average of 480 W/m^2 and this is more than enough to keep water from freezing. The average needs to be about 130 W/m^2 to freeze up the whole planet which requires an albedo greater than 0.6.

        You’re exhibiting the typical behavoir of an alarmist driven by unsupportable logic which is to consider only those factors that support your preconceptions, while ignoring everything else. Open your eyes to the big picture and the truth will set you free from your angst about man caused climate change.

      • crackers345 writes

        the wv feedback is obvious — it’s
        basic physics.
        and it’s happening.

        Speaking of basic physics, increased SST means more evaporation which is a “basic physics” negative feedback since that energy is removed from the surface. Which wins? And then there’s albedo changes with clouds, convection changes…the list goes on. If you look at a single feedback and think you have a grasp on the net effect it just means you dont understand the complexity…

  4. I find it strange that each time I visit a link about a region’s unexpected growing glaciers, it mentions that the rest of the world’s glaciers are melting. Am I missing something here, how can that be? If that were true, I would not be able to visit links to articles discussing the unexpected growth of the region”s glaciers.

    • Alarmists are selective of course, but as noted above, probably half or more of the world’s montane glaciers are in fact still shrinking, just as they’ve been doing since c. AD 1850.

      But about half are also growing or staying the same.

      • Hopefully everyone realizes that glaciers are hardly ever unchanging. They are either shrinking or growing but almost never unchanging. Much like the Climate never has been static, it always has been and will be changing

      • Gloateus, please say where your “half” comes from. I posted a couple of links demonstrating that a large majority are shrinking both by mass and by length.

      • You were given a link which would have taken you to much of the peer reviewed literature.
        What was your response?

  5. “But the circulation system is currently providing a dampening effect on global warming, reducing glacial melt in the Karakoram region and any change will have a significant effect on ice melt rates, which would ultimately affect river flows in the region,”

    …and with that curtsey to climate change, the paper passed pal review.

  6. “But the circulation system is currently providing a dampening effect on global warming,

    Shouldn’t that be “damping”?

    • Yes, Roger. And the word ‘effect’ is redundant. Damping is an effect.

      Climate science is not the work of the fattest acorns on the oak. See what Freeman Dyson had to say about that.

      I read the letter from Phil Jones quoted on the other thread last night on how to lower the 1940’s temperature spike by fiddling (replacing) the ocean temperatures. We are dealing with the ‘plots’ of sophomores here. They didn’t study English either.

      • Come to think of it, also unnecessary are “providingg a” and “on”. Sufficient would be, “… is currently damping global warming.” Struck & White would agree!

      • Roger: well spotted. I has a letter to the New Scientist published once on their ‘last page’ question and my text was whittled down to 99 brilliant words by some copy editor I have admired ever since. You have out-scored me today.

  7. so what?
    we’re going to have 2-4 C warming by 2100.
    you’re in the gutter, but some of us
    are looking at the
    stars.

      • we’re going to have 2-4 C warming by 2100.
        this century is the century of warming, due to ghgs. this is basic physics.

        The warming by 2100 due to GHGs is about 1 C. That’s the basic physics part. The rest of the rise is due to hypothesized positive feedbacks, which is woo-woo physics.

    • crackers345-
      You can bring yourself up to speed on glacier research going back many years, starting here:
      https://wattsupwiththat.com/category/glaciers/

      Wouldn’t recommend that you actually research any of the links you will find there, unless you are self- aware enough to search for the whole truth of things, rather than mere facts about things which support your beliefs.

      • Are you also interested in modeling long term periods of global warming & cooling as evidenced in the geologic column?

      • crackers345-
        What you really just said, is that you aren’t interested in learning the truth of things, but are only interested in supporting your beliefs and agenda.
        If you were to look through the research nested within the link I posted, you would learn that your statement “the glaciers are melting”, does not meet the truth test.

        Why do you bother to post, here?
        You can’t give evidence to support a single assertion you’ve made in this thread, so far.
        All you’ve done is declare that you “believe it, so that settles it”.

      • Alan Robertson
        “If you were to look through the research nested within the link I posted, you would learn that your statement “the glaciers are melting”, does not meet the truth test.”

        If you actually look at the evidence you find that glaciers are melting. The statement does meet the truth test. I posted links above, and here they are again. The majority are melting and the overall mass balance is very significantly negative.

        http://wgms.ch/latest-glacier-mass-balance-data/

        http://www.grid.unep.ch/glaciers/pdfs/5.pdf

        Can you show me even one study that says the opposite?

      • Your assessment of “Don’t-pester-me-with-facts” crackers345 is astute. Unfortunately there are a lot more committed apocalyptians than Sergeant Fridays among the doomsday cult operating under the rubric of climate change.

        Noted spokesyellers Albert Gore and Bill McKibben are not scientists; they are polemicists animated by quasi-religious zeal. They are not running an investigation of testable hypotheses; they are running revival meetings like 19th century millenarians who predicted the world would end on such-and-such a date, so you better repent NOW! In the meantime, give me your money, and give up your worldly comforts so I can fly around on lecture tour and act like a big shot.

        When the world fails to end on schedule — like Gore’s ice-free Arctic by 2013 — they just change the date, call another meeting and ask for more money.

      • seaice1 said:
        “If you actually look at the evidence you find that glaciers are melting. The statement does meet the truth test.”
        ————-
        No, that statement does not meet the truth test. It meets the fact test. SOME glaciers are melting. Who would disagree?
        You then went on to say that an argument which added the percentages of both stable and advancing glaciers to reach an 88% total, gave a subtle twist to the truth.

        Tell us how your own quoted figure of 12.3% retreating glaciers gives a label of truth to the statement: “the glaciers are melting”.

        Facts are not truth. Facts are only facets of the complete shining diamond of truth.

  8. These are same glaciers that IPCC 2007 report indicated would be gone in 2035. When it became apparent that 1/2 were actually growing or stable the IPCC head refused to apologize for the mistake (or his ad hominem attack “voodoo science” againts india’s environment ministers questioning of the conclusion). Turns out they got the information from the world wildlife foundation.

    Look up

    No apology from IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri for glacier fallacy | Environment | The Guardian

    Sorry Dont know how to paste the link from my ipad

  9. “While most glaciers are retreating as a result of global warming, the glaciers of the Karakoram range in South Asia are stable or even growing,”

    Hang about…aren’t ‘most glaciers’ in Antarctica? They aren’t ‘retreating’. Why? Because the Antarctic continent is cooling as a whole.

    If the world really is warming, on average, it doesn’t surprise me at all that it is raining more on other mountains. If it gets warm enough, it will return to raining throughout the Gobi and Sahara Deserts. Nothing wrong with that.

    • Dr Strangelove:

      It’s a the victory of basic measurements over basic physics.

      • Good point Pat.

        At the ICCI Conference in Warsaw in May they held that domestic combustion of coal was responsible for a lot of ice loss. That has to be subtracted from CO2-related claims for ‘warmth’ causing the same thing.

    • The study finds that from 2000 to 2010 “Among these, 1752 glaciers (86.8%) were observed having stable fronts (no change in the snout position and area of ablation zone), 248 (12.3%) exhibited retreat and 18 (0.9%) of them exhibited advancement of snout.

      Thus almost none are advancing. It would be reasonable to say that the study found almost 87% were stable and the rest retreating over that period. To say 88% were stable or advancing conveys a slightly different meaning.

  10. The climate models don’t “predict” the PDO, either.
    COULD SOMEBODY TELL ME:
    My impression is that climate models don’t predict wind and cloud cover. Is this true?

  11. They are surprised that the tallest mountains in the world are not melting? Did they not also get the memo that despite the strong but quickie El Nino and with rhe precipitous drop in equatorial temperature that followed, the oceans and atmosphere are cooling and the Dreaded Pause is about to reach back to pre 2000 again and resume! They really do think the science is settled and seem to be missing out on a learning moment. I’ve unhappily predicted an early and deep winter in Canada this year.

  12. This is hilarious; same deal in New Zealand (especially Franz J).
    Can’t wait for the evolving line-up of excuses; the art of the ‘tuned’ excuse.
    There’s no place in any of the models for such persistent cooling (regional or otherwise).
    It’s impossible . . .

  13. You’ve been warned: glaciers are coming to town near you soon (/sarc)
    Second summer snow in the Alps. These chairs near Zermatt (11th August) are meant for sunbathing

  14. When are they going to run a computer model proving Mark Twain’s observation: “There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.”? Or are the models proving him right already?

    How about a computer model that examines this one: “Scientists have odious manners, except when you prop up their theory; then you can borrow money of them.” Govt funding for doomsday scenarios bolsters that quote. They round up the usual suspects then conclude, “The only reasonable response is more govt control — with me in charge of the program.”

    We may develop artificial intelligence some day, but I doubt it will best the inimitable Mark Twain. When you press the button for “Wit,” will it come up with anything that good?

  15. The two places that have helped pull the earth’s climate to glaciation (along with ocean circulation changes) are Antarctica and the push-up of the Himalayas. Both significantly cool the climate. That both these regions are now cooling, and increasing in ice amount, is not a signature of a warming world.

  16. The Baltoro glacier is increasing, so is the Greenland glacier and the East Antarctic glacier and many more glaciers, and the extent of the sea ice on the polar sea in the north is increasing and most important of all there is no global warming any more, the hiatus (pause) started some twenty years ago after only twenty years of warming. The future dekades will most probably be colder than today…

  17. Has it not struck anyone here that glacier health is a product of the balance between snowfall at the top and melt at the bottom.
    Taking this further it then depends on the height of the glacier and on the absolute water content of a given airmass, and as such dependent on temperature.
    That some glaciers are receiving more snowfall under AGW is hardly a surprise.

    • That glaciers have received more snowfall under MWP, RWP, Minoan WP, Holocene Climate Optimum and many thousands of other warming periods in the history of climate change, is not a surprise either.

      • You state the obvious …. but those periods did not have ~ 400ppm CO2 did they? And the HCO optimum had the Milankovitch cycle driver.

      • Tone,

        Please show evidence for your apparent belief that 400 v 300 ppm of CO2 has a measurable effect on glaciers. Thanks.

    • “Some of the largest non-polar glaciers in the world are either stable or growing due to a “vortex” of cold air over a 1,200-mile section of the greater Himalayan mountain range in central Asia, according to a new study.”
      Maybe you read a different article from the one above. Or maybe, you just pulled that one out of your nether region.

  18. Actually, clouds are composed of tiny droplets of liquid water (unless they are very high altitude, in which they may be ice crystals). Water vapour, i.e. water in the gaseous phase, is transparent to visible light and has much the same refractive index as dry air, so there is no scattering involved. Although pure water in the liquid phase is also transparent to visible light, its refractive index is different from that of air, so light is scattered by it (generally Mie scattering if you want to get technical). When you perceive clods as being white, what you are actually seeing is sunlight scattered from a very large collection of individual water droplets.

    BTW, sugar and salt appear white for the same reason – a single crystal of either is transparent, but a collection of crystals will scatter light. The basis for most paints is rutile, or titanium dioxide, which is transparent but with a high refractive index. When rutile is ground very fine it makes an excellent scatterer of white light.

  19. Or another way of putting it:

    “Some Of The World’s Largest Non-Polar Glaciers Are Expanding, Despite the Price of Rice in China”

    (Maybe it’s the hiatus wot done it?)

  20. The models suck. They do not take into account any factors that are producing 100,000 year glaciation cycles. Yet they purport to predict the future. They can’t model anything. All the models do is reflect the ideology of their makers.

  21. I went up the Baltoro glacier in 1998, and it looked nothing like the pic in this article. This is me, on the very center of the Baltoro, just a few km from the top. (This was September.). The dust and rocks heat up in the strong midday sun, and melt any surface ice. The insolation on the Baltoro is stronger than in the tropics, due to its altitude.

    My sirdir guide said the Baltoro had receded a kilometer or two in his lifetime (back in 1998), but that many of the side tributaries had extended right up to the main glacier. I think many of these glaciers are controlled more by local variations in precipitation, rather than a global temp increase of half a degree.

  22. This is all very interesting, but it’s nothing more than that. It doesn’t change the big picture, which is, world wide most glaciers continue to decline as does global ice coverage. Anyone who thinks this is significant in any way is deluding themselves, which less face it, is why this article is written…. to confuse those who want to be.

    • Who’s confused Simon?
      Globe is slightly warming because LIA is all but over.
      Subject here is ‘climate models’ inability to ‘model’ such phenomena.
      Like most alarmists you’re being deceptive and attempting to change the subject to suit your alarmist view.
      You believe CO2 is responsible for the long-term miniscule warming, expansion of oceans, loss of ice etc.
      You believe CO2 is TODAY’S cause and the global natural cycle is irrelevant.
      Atmospheric CO2 has been higher in the past for eons while temperatures have been lower than current.
      Study is a good antidote to dogma.

  23. “Globe is slightly warming because LIA is all but over.”
    That statement is worthless. The LIA recovery finished a while ago. We should be cooling. Tell me why we are not?
    The ice is melting. I can tell you why it is.

    • Some homework for you Simon . . .

      National Academy of Sciences 2010 published a study of the earth’s climate 460-445 million years ago which found an intense period of glaciation (not warming) occurred when CO2 levels were 5 times higher than today.
      Your comment Simon?

      2003 study by Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics found many records reveal the 20th century is not the warmest or a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium. A 2005 study published in Nature found that high temperatures similar to those observed in the twentieth century before 1990 occurred around AD 1000 to 1100 in the Northern Hemisphere. A 2013 study published in Boreas found that summer temperatures during the Roman Empire and Medieval periods were consistently higher than temperatures during the 20th century.
      Your comment Simon?

      The IPCC predicted Himalayan glaciers would likely melt away by 2035 which is a prediction they disavowed in 2010. In 2014 a study of 2,181 Himalayan glaciers from 2000-2011 showed that 86.6% of the glaciers were not receding. According to a 2013 study of ice cores published in Nature Geoscience the current melting of glaciers in Western Antarctica is due to atmospheric circulation changes that have caused rapid warming over the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and cannot be directly attributed to human caused climate change. According to one of the study authors – if we could look back at this region of Antarctica in the 1940s and 1830s, we would find that the regional climate would look a lot like it does today, and I think we also would find the glaciers retreating much as they are today. According to Christian Schlüchter (Professor of Geology at the University of Bern) 4,000 year old tree remains have been found beneath retreating glaciers in the Swiss Alps thus indicating they were previously glacier-free. Schlüchter further states the current retreat of glaciers in the Alps began in the mid-19th century.
      Your comment Simon?

      • Crackers,

        That’s true. The sun gains in power about one percent per 110 million years.

        Earth suffered a fairly brief but severe ice age 440 million years ago, thanks to tectonics, when CO2 was at least ten times higher than now, and probably a lot more.

        The four percent lower solar output can’t explain the glaciation, since it was warmer before and after the ice age.

  24. Warren Blair
    First point. Yes (snore) CO2 levels have been higher…. and yes, at a time when temps have been cooler. There have been other well documented reasons for that. Sun dimmer for one. Those factors are not in play now.

    Second point. There have been times when “parts” of the world were warmer, but not on a global scale. And the warming was not as quick as we have seen in the last 100 years. But you knew all that… well you have been told, you just don’t want to listen.

    Third point.(Yawn) Himalayan glaciers. Yes the IPCC got a fact wrong. Call the police. In a document that has literally thousand of points, they actually got some things wrong. Wow if getting the occasional fact wrong was testimony to the quality of the overall document… then WUWT has a problem then.

    Yes parts of the antarctic are not warming like the rest of the planet. Did you think everywhere would react the same way? And it’s true the science is a little uncertain about why parts of the Antarctic are bucking the trend(although sea ice very low at the moment).

    So my overall comment is you are cherry picking, to confuse, which was my exact point in the first place. So thank you for reinforcing it for me.

    • Second point. There have been times when “parts” of the world were warmer, but not on a global scale. And the warming was not as quick as we have seen in the last 100 years. But you knew all that… well you have been told, you just don’t want to listen.

      yawn….

      please have a look at paleoclimatology… Ecpecially the young dryas is something interesting…

      the 8.2 Kyr event is as interesting

      that’s real science….

    • Simon August 13, 2017 at 9:46 pm

      You;re kidding, right?

      You really don’t know that earth has warmed more rapidly than in the past 100 years innumerable times, to include for instance in the early 18th century, coming out of the Maunder Minimum? And for longer.

      Not to mention all the glacial terminations, in which it warmed faster than now for much longer intervals.

  25. “The study found that ‘anomalous cooling’ over Karakoram could have an impact on river flows, which are heavily dependent on ice melt. The call it the “Karakoram vortex.”” — –How is it possible, even before the concept of global warming, the two major rivers were and are receiving heavy flows and how now they stop???

    Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

  26. I see you missed the most important one; Schlüchter’s forest.
    You comment Simon?

    Could you help me with some more Simon . . .
    What temperature should the globe be right now; your ‘safe’ temperature?

    Here’s the current picture with CO2 at catastrophic levels:

    Global temperatures:
    Most areas – slightly warmer.
    Some areas – unchanged.
    A few areas – lower.

    Global sea levels:
    Most areas – slightly higher.
    Some areas – unchanged.
    A few areas – lower (notably Antarctica where lots of ice is melting).
    Several areas – in a downward trend (notably the supposedly doomed islands of NAURU/KIRIBATI/VANUATU).

    Global extreme weather:
    Most areas – far less events.
    Some areas – unchanged.
    A few areas – more events.

    Global greening:
    I can’t say it any better than this . . .
    “From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25 2016”.

    Now Simon, if it gets to 2-degrees warmer than your ‘safe’ temperature, what will happen to:
    Global sea levels?
    Global greening?
    Global extreme weather ?

    4-degrees warmer than your ‘safe’ temperature, what will happen to:
    Global sea levels?
    Global greening?
    Global extreme weather ?

    6-degrees warmer than your ‘safe’ temperature, what will happen to:
    Global sea levels?
    Global greening?
    Global extreme weather ?

    I live in Australia where temperature variations are extreme but there’s no catastrophe here.
    Are you having a catastrophe where you live Simon?

    Sorry just two more Simon . . .

    Highest Antarctic region temperature was 35 years ago when CO2 was 340ppm.
    19.8°C was recorded on 30 January 1982 at Signy Research Station located at Borge Bay (near Esperanza Base) .

    Highest Antarctic temperature for a Plateau station [>2500 meters] was 28 years ago.
    -7.0°C was recorded on 28 December 1989 at an Automatic Weather Station (D-80) located inland from the Adélie Coast.

  27. What Simon you’re not having a catastrophe where you live?
    . . . oh there will be a catastrophe if we don’t put solar panels on our roof and pay for expensive green power.
    Simon you need what . . . oh you need more money for research . . . now I see!

  28. Simon says it’s too warm and CO2 is too high.
    But nobody ever told what would be the ‘correct’ values. So let’s propose some ‘ideal’ values:

    CO2 concentration: 800 ppm
    Average global temperature 16° C instead of 14.8
    others?

    Regards, Lorenz

    • 800. Where do you get that from?
      In the tomatoe greenhouses they have 1500. To get bigger tomatoes…
      Testing in vessels under water showed no ill effects at 4000. Remember CO2 is not a poison. Rabbit testing showed no ill effects at 60% provided it was well mixed with at least 20% oxygen. Roempps Chemie Lexicon 1972.

      • A coworker bought one of those house monitoring systems. When he demonstrated it, he said that some people get headaches from 1000 ppm. So I picked a lower value.

      • Hi lb
        how did they test it?
        you cannot add CO2 from one source as it is heavier and it takes some wind or something to diffuse it.
        As far as I remember they measured much higher values then 800 in the streets of a city.
        In the tomatoe houses they are working 8 hours a day and they went to 1500 but there motors blowing the air.around..
        I recall there is no TLV value for CO2. so there really is no overdose…

      • Hi Henryp. No idea how they tested this.
        Now we have one of those in a meeting room. After an hour or so with maybe eight people in, CO2 rises up to 1000ppm. But maybe it’s the meeting itself that causes headaches. ;-)

      • henry, plants lose proteins at higher
        co2. also, minerals decrease. plant
        nutrition decreases in general.

      • Photosynthesis+ H2O + CO2 is what all plants are made of. Everything you eat and drink depends on CO2 forming CxHxOx. More is better. Hence the reason why they add CO2 in the greenhouses. You never studied any biology?

      • “henry, plants lose proteins at higher
        co2. also, minerals decrease. plant
        nutrition decreases in general.”

        Bollocks.

  29. lb
    ha. Most surely, other people must be the source of the headaches….
    I suggest a true investigation on this by the EPA or what do you call this agency?
    I am sure that they did test this in submarines. I think 4000 is the level where people may experience some discomfort.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s