Glaciers on Mount Everest are shrinking

[Still Waters]

Glaciers on Mount Everest are shrinking, according to startling new photographs.

The two pictures show an "alarming" retreat in ice over more than 80 years.

The first was taken in 1921 by British mountaineer George Mallory, who later died trying to conquer Everest.

The Asia Society commissioned the same picture to be taken of the main Rongbuk glacier on the northern slope of Mount Everest in Tibet in 2007.

The new picture by mountaineer David Breashears show that the glacier is shrunk and withered.

A spokesman for the Asia Society said the picture was proof the ice is melting because of climate change, threatening water sources in highly populated areas of India and China.

"The photographs reveal a startling truth: the ice of the Himalaya is disappearing," he said. "They reveal an alarming loss in ice mass."

Read more...

[stevewinn]

i wouldn't worry its only water.

[Farmer77]

Uh Oh I hear a new tax coming

[Paracelse]

Uh Oh I hear a new tax coming

They(the government of France) are already talking about it .. and this country is already the place where people are the most taxed in the world.

[misteradam]

Is it just me, or do the before and after pictures look identical?

[+DieChecker]

Is it just me, or do the before and after pictures look identical?

They are from the same spot, but the newer one clearly shows the glacier has decreased in size. The side of the glacier does not go as far up the side of the valley. The mountain basically looks the same however. In many cases of glaciers getting smaller, it is not due to lack of precipitation or because the glacier is melting drastically, it is due to the little bit of extra water (Supposedly from Global Warming) that gets under the glacier and causes it to move much faster. Once the glacier is moving faster it gets to a warmer geographicial area faster and melts there.

[Shadow_of_Man]

... it is due to the little bit of extra water (Supposedly from Global Warming)

There it is again - Global Warming. Let's get off that kick before Al Gore uses that lame excuse again to create another tax scam!

[ExpandMyMind]

i see no one remembers this thread http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=173545&hl=glacier&st=0

so i guess all they have left to rely on for evidence are some photos?

Edited July 19, 2010 by expandmymind

[Guest]

Al Gore stole my bricks :angry2: :angry2: He's a big bad bully.

Love you skeptics.

Br Cornelius

[Doc Socks Junior]

Al Gore stole my bricks :angry2: :angry2: He's a big bad bully.

Love you skeptics.

Br Cornelius

Well, it's a little funny that the chief spokesperson for global warming, sorry, climate change (I keep mixing them up) is a hypocritical scam artist. But, as you say, love the skeptics who doubt him.

[Eldorado]

Is it just me, or do the before and after pictures look identical?

I agree...well, almost identical.

[ninjadude]

Well, it's a little funny that the chief spokesperson for global warming, sorry, climate change (I keep mixing them up) is a hypocritical scam artist.

The fact that most of the above is false must have escaped you. The only thing you got right was a name. .

[Doc Socks Junior]

The fact that most of the above is false must have escaped you. The only thing you got right was a name. .

Eh, I'm not really seeing what is incorrect here. The hypocritical part should be obvious. So should the scam artist part. I'm glad, for the sake of my estimation of your mental ability, that you were able to figure out that the name was correct. You got 33% critical thinking score today.

[The Silver Thong]

Well, it's a little funny that the chief spokesperson for global warming, sorry, climate change (I keep mixing them up) is a hypocritical scam artist. But, as you say, love the skeptics who doubt him.

Al Gore is a goof leave him out of it as he is yesterdays butt wipe. It does not change the fact we are going through a change. Quit fighting the messenger and listen to the message. We all know it's not a man made issue but we all know we have an impact. Talk about the issue not the moron with an Oscar and a billion dollar house.

[Guest]

For those interested in learning about the situation rather than confirming their prejudices here is an interesting discussion with an expert in the field;

http://www.scidev.net/en/features/q-a-andreas-schild-and-the-glacial-retreat-debate-1.html

Note that at no point does he question the reality of climate change, what he does do is point out that most of the Tibetan glaciers are retreating - but that some in Pakistan are expanding - both due to climate change. As usual the reality is far more complex than the simple stories we feel comfortable with.

Here is another study of the effects of soot on glacial retreat;

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2790363/pdf/zpq22114.pdf

It maybe tempting to conclude that soot is a lesser problem and more easily dealt with, but essentially all the factors which cause Global Warming and soot are the same, so unless you address one the other carries on destroying the glaciers. It estimates that black soot may account for as much as 50% of the warming trend of the last few decades - due to reduced albedo of the ice surface.

Essentially the conclusion is - man cause various types of pollution - each in turn leads to a warming trend, which in turn leads to glacial retreat - which in turn, due to feedback, causes further warming due to reduced surface albedo.

Br Cornelius

[stevewinn]

glaciers come and go, retreat and expand been happening for millennia. no matter what the cause. so what if the ice is melting and the climate is changing. the change is gradual, and just think of all the positives of living in a warmer world. is it a coincidence life flourishes in the warmest parts yet struggles in the coldest parts.

[ExpandMyMind]

For those interested in learning about the situation rather than confirming their prejudices here is an interesting discussion with an expert in the field;

http://www.scidev.net/en/features/q-a-andreas-schild-and-the-glacial-retreat-debate-1.html

Note that at no point does he question the reality of climate change, what he does do is point out that most of the Tibetan glaciers are retreating - but that some in Pakistan are expanding - both due to climate change. As usual the reality is far more complex than the simple stories we feel comfortable with.

Here is another study of the effects of soot on glacial retreat;

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2790363/pdf/zpq22114.pdf

It maybe tempting to conclude that soot is a lesser problem and more easily dealt with, but essentially all the factors which cause Global Warming and soot are the same, so unless you address one the other carries on destroying the glaciers. It estimates that black soot may account for as much as 50% of the warming trend of the last few decades - due to reduced albedo of the ice surface.

Essentially the conclusion is - man cause various types of pollution - each in turn leads to a warming trend, which in turn leads to glacial retreat - which in turn, due to feedback, causes further warming due to reduced surface albedo.

Br Cornelius

i think you meant to say 'due to the climate of the region changing' (it would have been more accurate). to attribute it to 'climate change' is completely different and would be quite an assumption.

i still chuckle at the fact they had to substitute global warming for climate change. suppose they needed something to combat all that nasty cold weather, messing up their grants. brrrr.

Edited July 21, 2010 by expandmymind

[Guest]

i think you meant to say 'due to the climate of the region changing' (it would have been more accurate). to attribute it to 'climate change' is completely different and would be quite an assumption.

i still chuckle at the fact they had to substitute global warming for climate change. suppose they needed something to combat all that nasty cold weather, messing up their grants. brrrr.

Since the averaged mean temperature has warmed over the last 100yrs for the planet as a whole - then it is accurate to describe it as Global Warming.

Since this causes a range of local climate effects it is accurate to describe the situation as Climate Change.

These statements are not contradictory, and the scientists have been using both terms in their appropriate context since the early days of research into recent man made climate shifts. I see no need to qualify my statement regarding climate change causing both glacial retreat and glacial expansion since it is the correct use of the term to descibe the local climate effects caused by Global Warming.

Br Cornelius

[ninjadude]

The hypocritical part should be obvious. So should the scam artist part.

nope. And the "spokesperson" part is wrong too.

[ninjadude]

glaciers come and go, retreat and expand been happening for millennia. no matter what the cause. so what if the ice is melting and the climate is changing. the change is gradual, and just think of all the positives of living in a warmer world. is it a coincidence life flourishes in the warmest parts yet struggles in the coldest parts.

The cause does matter because they should not be retreating.

The change is NOT gradual.

The positives?!! like flooding, lack of clean drinking water, lack of irrigation water, extreme weather events, heat waves?

[danielost]

Is it just me, or do the before and after pictures look identical?

the same shot but one looks like it is in winter and the other in summer

[The Silver Thong]

the same shot but one looks like it is in winter and the other in summer

Could be but to me the pic's both depict a sunny cloudless view. One in black and white one in color. But it could be as only the year not the month of the pic is posted.

My city depends on glacier water and there is serious talk about it as we seem to be getting more snow but warmer weather meaning the new snow doesn't last as long as it use to.

[ninjadude]

the same shot but one looks like it is in winter and the other in summer

Glaciers and extreme altitude snow pack on Everest don't melt that much from one season to the next. That's not just regular snow like in your backyard and it's not a regular place like where you live.

[Doc Socks Junior]

nope. And the "spokesperson" part is wrong too.

False.

EDIT: I think I'm going to write short posts when being dismissive now too.

Edited July 22, 2010 by socrates.junior

[MysticStrummer]

i think you meant to say 'due to the climate of the region changing' (it would have been more accurate). to attribute it to 'climate change' is completely different and would be quite an assumption.

i still chuckle at the fact they had to substitute global warming for climate change. suppose they needed something to combat all that nasty cold weather, messing up their grants. brrrr.

The terminology shift happened because some people can't wrap their heads around the "global" part... apparently.