Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Still Waters

Himalayan glaciers growing despite global

29 posts in this topic

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.

arrow3.gifRead more...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

gletcher.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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!

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.unesco.org/images/0010/001065/106523e.pdf

Edited by BFB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL! I'm warning you, you just agreed with a "conspiracy theorist" :ph34r: LOL!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL! I'm warning you, you just agreed with a "conspiracy theorist" :ph34r: LOL!

You got me pretty well now did you? Hahaha! :lol:

The thing is as far as "conspiracies" go, I do beleive in one as far as global warming is concerned. It would simply have to do with fossil fuel industries generating misinformation campaigns that go against already proven matter but dismissing it at the same time. Thus, I think calling it a "conspiracy' isn't too far off. But I don't want to discuss the definition of the word.

The problem is that most people now often correlate the word "conspiracy" with aliens, new world order, reduction of population and what not. I am open to these and have my views but as far as this topic goes, I won't venture in the one world government theory even if I am open to it.

That's all. I just didn't want to jump in it here. We have other boards for this.

Peace out you funny dude! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on commenters...I know you are smarter than this...do some research - and follow the money. The truth will be borne out, I promise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is because Global warming is a lie. The Poles are getting warmer but there is snow falling in deserts around the world. There is no "global Warming", there is a polar shift taking place. Just look around..... If it was "global warming" the entire globe would be getting hotter, but that is not the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is because Global warming is a lie. The Poles are getting warmer but there is snow falling in deserts around the world. There is no "global Warming", there is a polar shift taking place. Just look around..... If it was "global warming" the entire globe would be getting hotter, but that is not the case.

Yeh, the poles are shifting all around the equator...sure thing. And lately the sun goes up in the North.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is because Global warming is a lie. The Poles are getting warmer but there is snow falling in deserts around the world. There is no "global Warming", there is a polar shift taking place. Just look around..... If it was "global warming" the entire globe would be getting hotter, but that is not the case.

The whole polar shifting thing is a hoax. It probably did it when the continents were much closer together but they're much too far apart right now to affect the poles in this century. Or the next few thousand. Give or take a billion. :geek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something is happening to the planets climate. I live in Thailand and you may be aware that in 2011 we had heavy rain well before the rainy season and some time after.Flooding as never before.I also spen several months of the year on my sailing boat in Crete. The summer Meltemi last year was noticable weak.However the winter gales has been dramatic.In the Mediteranean the seasons have gone back about a month since ten years ago.This has been noted by the company that produce the sailing pilot books.Is this global warming ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Come on commenters...I know you are smarter than this...do some research - and follow the money. The truth will be borne out, I promise.

Go on. What is this truth?

The question of global warming belongs to the scientific domain to begin with. And it's not an opinion or a theory.

A smart person would go on and look at the physics behind it to get the picture, not just "think" that it might be fake for economical/political reasons.

Peace.

Edited by JayMark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is because Global warming is a lie. The Poles are getting warmer but there is snow falling in deserts around the world. There is no "global Warming", there is a polar shift taking place. Just look around..... If it was "global warming" the entire globe would be getting hotter, but that is not the case.

Global climate is driven by a multitude of heat distribution mechanisms. If I follow your logic, the temperature should be the same everywhere in the world. Considering they aren't, how do you think we can determine the global temperature? Yes, by making an average of all the temperatures recorded everywhere (in simple terms).

Here is an example. If you consider this sequence of numbers; 5, 15, 10, 5, 15 and make an average, you get 10. If I then take the same sequence but change only two of them; 15, 15, 10, 5, 10 and make a new average, I now get 11. So did I need to change every number to raise the average? No. Same with global temperature. Note that I even lowered one of them just like it is happening in some areas. The new average is still higher that initial average. Hope you get the picture.

Peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

alot of interesting points of view here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.