Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Himalayan glaciers growing despite global


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#1    Still Waters

Still Waters

    Deeply Mysterious

  • 38,098 posts
  • Joined:01 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Female

  • "Look deep into nature, and then you will understand everything better." - Albert Einstein

Posted 16 April 2012 - 01:16 PM

www.telegraph.co.uk said:

Glaciers in parts of the greater Himalayas are growing despite the worldwide trend of ice melting due to warmer temperatures, a study has found.

In the Karakoram mountain range on the border of Pakistan and China, glaciers have defied global warming to become marginally larger over a decade, researchers said.

The French scientists produced three dimensional maps of the range, which is separated from the Himalayas but usually considered part of the same chain, between 1999 and 2008.

Their findings suggest the region is contravening the global pattern of glacier shrinkage, which is taking place elsewhere in the Himalayas and around the planet.

Posted Image Read more...


Posted Image

#2    JayMark

JayMark

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 941 posts
  • Joined:08 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Non-Local

  • Our universe was created out of a desire. A desire to experiment, interact and evolve within a multitude of planes of consciousness.

Posted 16 April 2012 - 02:34 PM

The link from the OP states that: "The impact of global warming in the region has been controversial since an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report wrongly claimed in 2007 that glaciers in most of the greater Himalayan range could vanish by 2035."

The IPCC have already made an allusion to this. The initial date came from a 73 pages report published by the Unesco in 1996 and coorinated by Vladimir Kotlyakov, a glaciologist. While we read 2035, we should have read 2350. Typo apparently came from an article wrote by Fred Pearce, an English author and journalist in 1999.

But yeah, they have made some mistakes and corrected them accordingly. Fact is many glaciers are quite indeed receding. I have seen a documentry not too long ago about it and many pictures taken over decades showing how bad it is in some areas.

Peace.

Bartender says: "Sorry, we don't serve faster-than-light neutrinos here."

So you have these two faster-than-light neutrinos walking into a bar...

#3    BFB

BFB

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,308 posts
  • Joined:25 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 17 April 2012 - 11:50 AM

Last year(summer) a team of scientists from University of Potsdam and University of California found that 58% of the glacires in the region were either stabile or growing. They concluded the reason for this was because of isolation. The growing glaciers are covered with stones and such so the sun and hot "air" can't reach the glaciers ice, as seen below.

Posted Image

"Its not true, before my brain says so" - BFB

#4    BFB

BFB

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,308 posts
  • Joined:25 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 17 April 2012 - 12:10 PM

View PostJayMark, on 16 April 2012 - 02:34 PM, said:


The IPCC have already made an allusion to this. The initial date came from a 73 pages report published by the Unesco in 1996 and coorinated by Vladimir Kotlyakov, a glaciologist. While we read 2035, we should have read 2350. Typo apparently came from an article wrote by Fred Pearce, an English author and journalist in 1999.

Peace.

Where did you get that from?

Kotlyakov never said the glaciers in the Himalayas would be gone by 2350!

Quote

The extrapolar glaciation of the Earth will be decaying at rapid, catastrophic rates—
its total area will shrink from 500,000 to 100,000 km² by the year 2350. Glaciers will survive
only
in the mountains of inner Alaska, on some Arctic archipelagos, within Patagonian ice
sheets, in the Karakoram Mountains, in the Himalayas, in some regions of Tibet and on the
highest mountain peaks in the temperature latitudes.

* - http://unesdoc.unesc...065/106523e.pdf

Edited by BFB, 17 April 2012 - 12:11 PM.

"Its not true, before my brain says so" - BFB

#5    WoIverine

WoIverine

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,721 posts
  • Joined:16 Sep 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 April 2012 - 01:20 PM

So, anyone want to start paying that "carbon footprint" tax yet?


#6    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,319 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 17 April 2012 - 01:39 PM

View PostSpid3rCyd3, on 17 April 2012 - 01:20 PM, said:

So, anyone want to start paying that "carbon footprint" tax yet?

They are most likely growing due to the increased humidity, which in turn is caused by global warming. Why would you think any different?

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#7    JayMark

JayMark

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 941 posts
  • Joined:08 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Non-Local

  • Our universe was created out of a desire. A desire to experiment, interact and evolve within a multitude of planes of consciousness.

Posted 17 April 2012 - 03:14 PM

View PostBFB, on 17 April 2012 - 12:10 PM, said:

Where did you get that from?

Kotlyakov never said the glaciers in the Himalayas would be gone by 2350!

My bad.

I have a book covering this (and other things). I did not remembered the full stroy before posting it. I have the book right now so I'll translate and sum up what I'm reading now. It's a bit more complex that what I wrote actually. You are right about what you say.

Book: Le Populisme Climatique; Stéphane Foucart; 2010

Apparently, the error came from the IPCC (2007) from second report on page 493. Mentionned source was the WWF from 2005. Then going through the report made by the WWF, it mentions that the source is from New Scientist in 1999 in an article written by Fred Pearce.

Fred Pearce said he had gotten the information from Syed Iqbal Hasnain which was working for the TERI, an indian research center directed by Rajendra Pachauri, the director of the IPCC. That's all it took to start off a big controversy.

Then after questionning them, Syed said he had never given this date to anybody neither suggesting it in any work. Pearce said Sayed gave him the info by e-mail but refused to show it. And looking back at the original article from New Scientist, they noted that the date (2035) wasen't even cited as beeing from Syed's work.

They eventually came across a 73 page report published by the Unesco in 1996 (as you quoted) and coordinated by glaciologist Vladimir Kotlyakov which mentionned 2350 but as you said, not in reference to their "extinction". Your quote is right from this report. Note that 2035 is only one typo away from 2350.

They have accused Sayed and Rajendra to have allegedly put up false information in the IPCC report but thing is Sayed wasen't working for the TERI back in 1999 and Rajendra wasen't even the director of the IPCC yet. So Syed couldn't have given such false information to Pearce while working at TERI because he wasen't working there as Pearce implied.

So to sum it up, it started supposedly with a statement Pearce said he had gotten from a TERI member (Sayed) than was then used by the WWF six years later and that was then used in the IPCC report. Then Syed and Rajendra were blamed for it and accused to put false informations in their work which is absurd because they weren't even part of the workgroups that they were said to belong to (TERI and direction of the IPCC).

So unless Sayed knew that his statement to Pearce (which probably never existed anyways) was going to end up six years later in the WWF report and then in the IPCC report and unless he knew he was going to be hired by the TERI many years later and that Rajandra would also get hired as the IPCC director a couple years later, the accusations are quite absurd. Also Syed didn't even work on the 2nd AR4 report, where the error was found.

That's what I got from it. I still have the book so if I missinterpreted something, well I'll check it out again and post more.

Peace. Thanks for pointing it out.

Edited by JayMark, 17 April 2012 - 03:16 PM.

Bartender says: "Sorry, we don't serve faster-than-light neutrinos here."

So you have these two faster-than-light neutrinos walking into a bar...

#8    WoIverine

WoIverine

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,721 posts
  • Joined:16 Sep 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 April 2012 - 03:28 PM

View Postquestionmark, on 17 April 2012 - 01:39 PM, said:

They are most likely growing due to the increased humidity, which in turn is caused by global warming. Why would you think any different?

The spending giant needs to redirect existing funds to more important venues. Throwing more taxes around isn't the answer, although that's what will probably happen anyway, hopefully not though.  <_<

Edited by Spid3rCyd3, 17 April 2012 - 03:29 PM.


#9    JayMark

JayMark

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 941 posts
  • Joined:08 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Non-Local

  • Our universe was created out of a desire. A desire to experiment, interact and evolve within a multitude of planes of consciousness.

Posted 17 April 2012 - 03:42 PM

View PostSpid3rCyd3, on 17 April 2012 - 03:28 PM, said:

The spending giant needs to redirect funds to more important venues. Throwing more taxes around isn't the answer, although that's what will probably happen anyway, hopefully not though.  <_<

A carbon tax dosen't seem too appealing but if done intelligently, it could have it's loads of benefits without putting people bankrupt. Not that I want this to happen neither but you know. It's all about the way to do it.

The World Bank talks about it in their 2010 report on development and climate changes. Sure thing is they are urging us to do something about it because they have estimated that if we go over 2-2.5°C of warming, the economy is going to weaken even more and could even collapse. In other words, the costs/losses needed to maintain temperature to 2-2.5°C max are estimated to be lower than the costs/losses that could result from going over it.

And quite frankly, seeing as things are evolving now, I doubt we will make it in time. According to them, we would need to maintain current GHG emissions stable until 2020 and then proceed to lower them. I'll get the book tomorrow and give more details if anybody wishes.

They also talk about the "clean energy" potential in the world and about all the things we could do to prevent the worst to happen while still making sure the economy dosen't crash.

I'll come back with more about it.

Peace.

Bartender says: "Sorry, we don't serve faster-than-light neutrinos here."

So you have these two faster-than-light neutrinos walking into a bar...

#10    OverSword

OverSword

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 13,099 posts
  • Joined:16 Oct 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle WA USA

  • When the power of love overcomes the love of power then humanity can evolve

Posted 17 April 2012 - 03:43 PM

View PostSpid3rCyd3, on 17 April 2012 - 01:20 PM, said:

So, anyone want to start paying that "carbon footprint" tax yet?
And of course the big question here is who exactly would we be paying this tax to, and would that be the public introduction to the defacto one world government?  Yeah I know, not on topic but I believe a one world government is the reason that global warming has been made so highly political.


#11    JayMark

JayMark

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 941 posts
  • Joined:08 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Non-Local

  • Our universe was created out of a desire. A desire to experiment, interact and evolve within a multitude of planes of consciousness.

Posted 17 April 2012 - 04:03 PM

View PostOverSword, on 17 April 2012 - 03:43 PM, said:

And of course the big question here is who exactly would we be paying this tax to, and would that be the public introduction to the defacto one world government?  Yeah I know, not on topic but I believe a one world government is the reason that global warming has been made so highly political.

I think you may be going a little to much into the conspiracy relam here.

As I just said in last post, I have the full 2010 World Bank report which is covering every aspect or so of the economy vs climate changes.

They have proposed many diffrent solutions. I will check for what you are asking and come back at it.

We could very well theorically use that money to promote "carbon-free" technologies or should I say "cleaner" ones like investing in clean public transportation while lowering the costs at the same time et cetera. We could even use this to begin mass productions of electric cars thus making them available for most. Electric car technology is already well advanced. The Tesla car (100% electric) can run about 500 km on a single charge and has about 280hp/300ft-lbs. It all depends on the choises that are made. I think fossil fuel industries should be the first ones paying.

I'm not an economist though, I don't know how faisible this could be.

Here in Québec, we are already planning to change 95% of the public buses into fully electric ones. And we have already developed other brilliant technologies.

My thoughts.

Peace.

Bartender says: "Sorry, we don't serve faster-than-light neutrinos here."

So you have these two faster-than-light neutrinos walking into a bar...

#12    OverSword

OverSword

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 13,099 posts
  • Joined:16 Oct 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle WA USA

  • When the power of love overcomes the love of power then humanity can evolve

Posted 17 April 2012 - 07:05 PM

View PostJayMark, on 17 April 2012 - 04:03 PM, said:

I think you may be going a little to much into the conspiracy relam here.

As I just said in last post, I have the full 2010 World Bank report which is covering every aspect or so of the economy vs climate changes.

They have proposed many diffrent solutions. I will check for what you are asking and come back at it.

We could very well theorically use that money to promote "carbon-free" technologies or should I say "cleaner" ones like investing in clean public transportation while lowering the costs at the same time et cetera. We could even use this to begin mass productions of electric cars thus making them available for most. Electric car technology is already well advanced. The Tesla car (100% electric) can run about 500 km on a single charge and has about 280hp/300ft-lbs. It all depends on the choises that are made. I think fossil fuel industries should be the first ones paying.

I'm not an economist though, I don't know how faisible this could be.

Here in Québec, we are already planning to change 95% of the public buses into fully electric ones. And we have already developed other brilliant technologies.

My thoughts.

Peace.
Problem I see with that is it flies in the face of the richest(?) most powerful, and influencial industry on the face of the earth.  So all we really need is a group of the most corrupt people on the planet (imho) politicians to resist the financial temptations not to change.


#13    JayMark

JayMark

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 941 posts
  • Joined:08 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Non-Local

  • Our universe was created out of a desire. A desire to experiment, interact and evolve within a multitude of planes of consciousness.

Posted 17 April 2012 - 07:16 PM

View PostOverSword, on 17 April 2012 - 07:05 PM, said:

Problem I see with that is it flies in the face of the richest(?) most powerful, and influencial industry on the face of the earth.  So all we really need is a group of the most corrupt people on the planet (imho) politicians to resist the financial temptations not to change.

I do not really understand what you mean here. Could you be more specific?

What do you mean by your last sentence?

Bartender says: "Sorry, we don't serve faster-than-light neutrinos here."

So you have these two faster-than-light neutrinos walking into a bar...

#14    OverSword

OverSword

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 13,099 posts
  • Joined:16 Oct 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle WA USA

  • When the power of love overcomes the love of power then humanity can evolve

Posted 17 April 2012 - 07:23 PM

A carbon tax would mainly affect "big oil" who report larger and larger profits every year.,  Creating subsidies using thier money, to develop effordable electric cars would be counter to thier continued profits and power.

What I mean by the last sentence is that this would ultimately be for politicians to decide and I think it would be no problem for "big oil" to pay them not to pass anything like this.(carbon tax)

Edited by OverSword, 17 April 2012 - 07:23 PM.


#15    JayMark

JayMark

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 941 posts
  • Joined:08 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Non-Local

  • Our universe was created out of a desire. A desire to experiment, interact and evolve within a multitude of planes of consciousness.

Posted 17 April 2012 - 07:32 PM

View PostOverSword, on 17 April 2012 - 07:23 PM, said:

A carbon tax would mainly affect "big oil" who report larger and larger profits every year.,  Creating subsidies using thier money, to develop effordable electric cars would be counter to thier continued profits and power.

What I mean by the last sentence is that this would ultimately be for politicians to decide and I think it would be no problem for "big oil" to pay them not to pass anything like this.(carbon tax)

Oh I see. Thanks.

I agree with you completely on this.

Fossil fuel industries are already spending millions on misinformation campaigns by paying people (usually scientists, even good and famous ones) to spread crap and doubt among people.

They just want to keep making money as much and as long as they can not caring about anything or anybody else.

My thoughts.

Peace.

Edited by JayMark, 17 April 2012 - 07:34 PM.

Bartender says: "Sorry, we don't serve faster-than-light neutrinos here."

So you have these two faster-than-light neutrinos walking into a bar...




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users