[andre]

http://www.nature.co...ature10847.html

Maybe some folks have some explaining to do.

Quote

The high mountains of Asia, in particular, show a mass loss of only 4 ± 20 Gt yr⁻¹ for 2003–2010, compared with 47–55 Gt yr⁻¹ in previously published estimates

[Bluenosejohn]

Surely from the point of view of Himalayan glaciers melting it is just the case of the problem happening a bit more slowly than expected. The link given above is a purely factual a summary of the article on the site of the journal concerned with the full article itself on its pay section. A quick search on the net produces more flesh on the matter including what seems to be the salient summary from one of the authors of the report John Wahr "That's a large number, and represents a lot of melting ice," said Wahr. "But it's at least 30 percent smaller than previous global estimates, none of which have used GRACE," he said, referring to the name of the satellite.'


http://www.csmonitor...re-still-rising

[Andy Mayhew]

Of course, this does not mean that some individual glaciers are not retreating rapidly - something which we do know for fact is happening in places. Only that over the last few years, the overall glacial extent across whole of the Greater Himalaya-Karakorum-Altai Range has not declined as much as some had expected. I wonder if in part this is due to increased snowfall in some regions caused by anthropogenic climate change? Isn't there evidence some glaciers have been expanding whilst those in nearby valleys have been retreating, due to changes in precipition?

It does at least show the dangers in trying to extropolate general trends from local data.

Also, an interesting piece on this in the Guardian today:

What does new glacier data mean for the climate debate?

[ldavidcooke]

Hey Andre and Friends,

Sorry to butt in, but I need to request clarification in Andre's initial quote. Were the measured value of variation in the melt went from 45-55 Gt to 4 +/- 20 Gt. Does that truly indicate a range of a loss of between 24Gt and -16Gt (meaning a gain of 16Gt)? If there is a gain where? If we have some insights please share...


( Andre, BTW this really is old news, the AR4 inclusion of this was discredited years ago. It was not scientific evidence, but circular evidence based on a fringe environmental activist article and drove the change in the IPCC chairmanship a few years back. If you have a good paper that details the ice cover for at least 30 years in the area, it would be welcome.)

[John Mason]

Look to the Arctic if fast changes are what you want to see. That's where all the action was expected to be by most of us, and where it is happening.

More on this: http://www.skeptical...-GRACE_JPL.html

Cheers - John

[Nigel Bolton]

Somewhat not surprised by this, given the anthro-meteorological happenings of the past 25 years.

We appear to have forgotten about the first Gulf war in early 1991, which ended by the Iraqis torching all the Kuwaiti oil wells, such that much of southeast Asia, including the Himalaya were covered in an acrid oily smoke. Some of this blackened the Himalayan snow, this causing a more rapid thaw of snow than normal during the summers of 1991 and 1992. Such was the rate of melting during 1991, that some serious flooding occured on some of the rivers leading southwards out of the main Himalayan chain during the monsoon season of 1991. The village of Tatopani in the Annapurna region of Nepal was almost swept away by a flood. By the time I visited the Annapurna region in central Nepal in October and November 1992, much of the non consolidated snow had melted. Normally, the last few thousand feet of the climb up Chulu East, a trekking peak, would have been on snow, but a weak monsoon and ablating snow due to altered albedo meant that only the highest few hundred feet were snow covered. During the following years, there was a perceived reduction in glacier ice due to further hot summers and low rainfall.

During the past few years, there has on occasions been strong southward movement of the polar front jet, by blocking of the temperate westerlies and negative NAO, or even a serious weakening of the polar front jet such that the subtropical jet has played a more active part during the winter half of the year. This has meant that atmospheric mobility has been much further south than normal, and therefore more able to tap into subtropical warmth and moisture. Although the Himalaya gets 'westerly' storms during the winter, during the past few, these have been on occasions particularly active, with the jet driving moisture eastwards from the Med to the Karakorum and further east. There have been significant rains in Pakistan during the winter months during the past two winters especially with corresponding high rates of snowfall across the mountains.

There have also been some significant monsoon storms during the past few years too, the near inundation of Pakisan by the Indus river being a very tangible event in this respect. Altough freezing levels in such storms are generally in the order of 4000 to 5000 metres, with some of the peaks exceeding 8000 metres in this region, there must have been the propensity for further significant snow accumulations above this level during the monsoon season.

Therefore, looks like the losses of snow allegedly caused by the first Gulf War may be being recharged and therefore correcting an initially perceived over rapid depletion of Himalayan ice.

N.

[Rupert Wood]

I'll just add this link.

http://glacierchange.wordpress.com/

[andre]

ldavidcooke, on 11 February 2012 - 14:51, said:

Hey Andre and Friends,

Sorry to butt in, but I need to request clarification in Andre's initial quote. Were the measured value of variation in the melt went from 45-55 Gt to 4 +/- 20 Gt. Does that truly indicate a range of a loss of between 24Gt and -16Gt (meaning a gain of 16Gt)? If there is a gain where? If we have some insights please share...


( Andre, BTW this really is old news, the AR4 inclusion of this was discredited years ago. It was not scientific evidence, but circular evidence based on a fringe environmental activist article and drove the change in the IPCC chairmanship a few years back. If you have a good paper that details the ice cover for at least 30 years in the area, it would be welcome.)

Hi David,

I don't understand, the article is published in Nature on 8 February 2012, So is a few days old, old news?

[ldavidcooke]

Hey Andre,

As I no longer us a PC and can no longer retrieve my long list of book marks, I can not supply a link to the 2009-10 issues wrt the IPCC. You may find references in one of the anti-AGW sites if you desire.

As to the main point, it appears by your quote, you are suggesting the latest annual glacerial loss in the region is 4Gt +/- 20Gt. This suggest a range of varibility of between -24Gt and +16Gt. This would suggest a slow 4Gt downward trend regardless of the variation.

However, if we shift the field of measure so that abnormal Anthropogenic activity (ie: '91-'92 battle for Kuwait) as well as some natural events like Mt. Pinatobo, the variation still demonstrates a negative growth. So it is likely natural weather patterns/synoptics were already causing some loss.

The question is, what is the driver of the weather patterns, natural variation? The climatic data appears to show some effect that is greater then a 1-2 standard deviation in precipitation and temperature for this area.

[John Mason]

Still amazes me it took over two years before anybody spotted that typo! Either there are a lot of bad readers out there or because it wasn't in one of the main reports nobody got round to reading the relevant bit for over two years. Must be one or the other. However, it is nothing to do with Andre's thread so let's both respect that, eh?

Cheers - John

[ldavidcooke]

Hey Vil,

Unlike some scientists, an error in a small sub-paragraph does not a large report, (scientific paper), invalidate... It was an aknowledged error..., once uncovered. The issue as I see it, was first the attitude that led to its inclusion and secondly the lack of proactive error research by panel members after it was published.

Just because you as an author have drawn a line in the data stream, does not preclude you from follow ups to improve the quality of your work. A bit like creating software; until such time a knowledge base has changed to require a new report (release or paper), periodic updates should be forth coming when reporting on a changing data set, IMHO...

[ldavidcooke]

Village, on 06 March 2012 - 11:32, said:

Dave, that doesnt negate the fact that the IPCC issued a statement without first having proof read the full report.
We know all too well why they did this. Its because they are too overly eager to issue bias reports in favour of their pet Anthropogenic CO2 lead climate change.
Then again, we also know that the IPCC reports are also combed through line by line by politicians before they are allowed to be published.
Is there then any wonder that the final output was incorrect and had little to do with real science?

Hey Vil,

The real reason for the errors inclusion was the tit-for-tat compromise forced on the panel. If they were going to have to compromise to reduce the impact of what they felt was the indicated probability that GW was occurring, they were going to roll in some of the more controversal evidence that GW was occurring now and causing dramatic changes. In essence, war without substance or spin doctoring was the over-riding directive. The intent was to sling pie at the political parties denying GW. They simply choose the wrong evidence.

Had they instead demonstrated that cross zonal advection of equatorial heat was exceeding the radiational emission at 15um would have done the job quite effectively. Instead they choose that which should alarm or scare their biggest impedimemt to reporting the actual science. It was for that reason the former IPCC chairman was ousted, well that and his insistence that western cultures should abandon animals as food stock.

So it was not so much a AGW versus Denialist war, as much as it was a "Truth in Science Fact" versus "Political Spin".

[ldavidcooke]

Hey Vil,

No, the reason you cannot get real science from a political body is that what most politicians believe; that which they believe is true has to be true. Rather then being Deniers they are Deceivers by and large.

If you want the true science you have to read the scientific papers. The problem is most papers can not be understood without at least 2-3 quarters of college natural sciences, (whether, meterology, geology, thermo-dynamics, or even general physics and advanced math).

The average media outlet does not carry anyone on staff capable of interpretation either. This leaves science periodicals where the editor at least has some scientific background or reviewers on the payroll who can figure out what is being suggested. As with most any source, he who wins the war, (holds the reins) determines the history (facts).

So your best choice if you want the whole truth is, either listen and learn from the banter of scientific conversations on public forums or go back to school and then subscribe to several professional periodical media outlets at a few hundred dollars per year...

[ldavidcooke]

Hey Vil,

Well thanks, though I am less learned then most here. (I could not fight my way out of a Trig. course, much less Calculas...) A place to have an honest open discussion of the science has been the aim of the two climate forums here on UKww for as long as I have been a member.

The main problem we end up with is letting little things obscure the big things. If we can agree on the big things, we can let the evidence take care of the noise.

As to what constitutes big things, well that is a matter of opinion. Hence, we need to be tolerant of the differences while trying to fill in the gaps of our knowledge. If we can try to agree on things rather then to pump up the points of disagreement we can make more progress in our knowledge. (However, as most current members can attest, too much agreement can make for a boring forum.)

Being tolerant of subjects where there is broad opinion sets and seeking clarification rather then dismissing them is a sign of maturity, it maybe we are on the cusp of enlightenment. Maybe, just maybe, this can be a forum where truths can be discussed and knowledge gained, that has been my hope atleast.