The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years

[skookerasbil]

 

[RollingThunder]

Take a hike up Mt. Everest and stumble over the corpses of climbers who froze to death during the mild summers.

Scientists say that the world is experiencing a gradual but accelerating CO2 induced trend towards higher temperatures that will, over the next decades and centuries, have a dangerously negative effect on climate patterns, agriculture, sea levels, tropical habitability, etc., etc., and you conclude that that means that mountain tops nearly six miles high should have immediately (or, using your example, years in the past) become warm and balmy in spite of the altitude or else the climate scientists' warning are bunk. Is that it? LOLOLOL. Do you have to take 'retard pills' or were you born this way?

 

[westwall]

The alarmist contingent best take up a new science hobby..................

Being the conscientious conservative that I am, thought I'd point them in some kind of direction..........

Here ya go s0ns...................


Obstacles No Barrier to Higher Speeds for Worms, NYU Researchers Find


After all ( from Pew )..................

Who's not winning???

Another year of weather disasters like 2010 and 2011, and none of us will be winning. And there will be a paradigm change of the voting populaces view of climate change and those that have been lying to them about it.

Really? How many people died? I'll raise you swimming pools. Swimming pools in the US,
drown more people then all your storms combined. A tsunami will drown more but I think even you won't try to attribute a tsunami to global warming...or will you?

 

[RollingThunder]

Another year of weather disasters like 2010 and 2011, and none of us will be winning. And there will be a paradigm change of the voting populaces view of climate change and those that have been lying to them about it.

Really? How many people died? I'll raise you swimming pools. Swimming pools in the US,
drown more people then all your storms combined. A tsunami will drown more but I think even you won't try to attribute a tsunami to global warming...or will you?

In a moment of boredom, I bothered to check up on the walleyedretard's claims, even though I know he lies constantly.

From the CDC's Unintentional Drowning: Fact Sheet

In 2007, there were 3,443 fatal unintentional drownings (non-boating related) in the United States, averaging ten deaths per day. An additional 496 people died from drowning in boating-related incidents.1,2
More than one in five people who die from drowning are children 14 and younger.1

Natual Water Settings (such as lakes, rivers, or the ocean). The percent of drownings in natural water settings increases with age. When a location was known, 65% of drownings among those 15 years and older occurred in natural water settings.8

So, let's assume that 2007 was a fairly typical year and start with the total number of deaths by drowning (non-boating) which is 3,443. One fifth or a bit more of those are children 14 and younger which gives us close to 700 there, let's say, with some unknown but fairly large percentage of them dying in swimming pools. Of the approx 2,750 people 15 and over who drown in that year, 65%, or about 1800, didn't do it in swimming pools leaving about 960 who may have died in pools. Let's be generous and say all of them did and all of the kids which gives us about 1700 swimming pool deaths per year.

It's difficult to find a total figure on weather disaster related deaths per year but I did find a few items...

2011 was an exceptionally destructive and deadly year for tornadoes; worldwide, at least 576 people perished due to tornadoes

That's just tornadoes. We would still have to look at all of the hurricane, tropical storm and tropical cyclone disasters. Here's a recent one that struck Central America.

Tropical Storm Agatha (2010)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Total Fatalities - 190

I can just hear ol' walleyed muttering: "still nowhere near 1700 swimming pool deaths"....LOL...

....of course, so far, we've just scratched the surface of weather disaster related deaths....here's a big one from just a few years ago that gives some sense of the scale of the kind of weather disasters Old Rocks was talking about and the walleyedretard was idiotically trying to compare to swimming pool deaths just in the USA. And of course, when people die in swimming pools, it doesn't result in billions of dollars in associated damages like some of these tropical cyclones and hurricanes have.

Cyclone Nargis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The cyclone made landfall in Burma on Friday, May 2, 2008, causing catastrophic destruction and at least 138,000 fatalities.

Gee, walleyed.....138,000 deaths from just one storm....that's equal to over 80 years of swimming pool deaths.....now do you see why people call you a retard???

 

[skookerasbil]

Another year of weather disasters like 2010 and 2011, and none of us will be winning. And there will be a paradigm change of the voting populaces view of climate change and those that have been lying to them about it.

Really? How many people died? I'll raise you swimming pools. Swimming pools in the US,
drown more people then all your storms combined. A tsunami will drown more but I think even you won't try to attribute a tsunami to global warming...or will you?

In a moment of boredom, I bothered to check up on the walleyedretard's claims, even though I know he lies constantly.

From the CDC's Unintentional Drowning: Fact Sheet

In 2007, there were 3,443 fatal unintentional drownings (non-boating related) in the United States, averaging ten deaths per day. An additional 496 people died from drowning in boating-related incidents.1,2
More than one in five people who die from drowning are children 14 and younger.1

Natual Water Settings (such as lakes, rivers, or the ocean). The percent of drownings in natural water settings increases with age. When a location was known, 65% of drownings among those 15 years and older occurred in natural water settings.8

So, let's assume that 2007 was a fairly typical year and start with the total number of deaths by drowning (non-boating) which is 3,443. One fifth or a bit more of those are children 14 and younger which gives us close to 700 there, let's say, with some unknown but fairly large percentage of them dying in swimming pools. Of the approx 2,750 people 15 and over who drown in that year, 65%, or about 1800, didn't do it in swimming pools leaving about 960 who may have died in pools. Let's be generous and say all of them did and all of the kids which gives us about 1700 swimming pool deaths per year.

It's difficult to find a total figure on weather disaster related deaths per year but I did find a few items...

2011 was an exceptionally destructive and deadly year for tornadoes; worldwide, at least 576 people perished due to tornadoes

That's just tornadoes. We would still have to look at all of the hurricane, tropical storm and tropical cyclone disasters. Here's a recent one that struck Central America.

Tropical Storm Agatha (2010)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Total Fatalities - 190

I can just hear ol' walleyed muttering: "still nowhere near 1700 swimming pool deaths"....LOL...

....of course, so far, we've just scratched the surface of weather disaster related deaths....here's a big one from just a few years ago that gives some sense of the scale of the kind of weather disasters Old Rocks was talking about and the walleyedretard was idiotically trying to compare to swimming pool deaths just in the USA. And of course, when people die in swimming pools, it doesn't result in billions of dollars in associated damages like some of these tropical cyclones and hurricanes have.

Cyclone Nargis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The cyclone made landfall in Burma on Friday, May 2, 2008, causing catastrophic destruction and at least 138,000 fatalities.

Gee, walleyed.....138,000 deaths from just one storm....that's equal to over 80 years of swimming pool deaths.....now do you see why people call you a retard???

These meatheads think that natural catastrophies started only after 1998!!!

 

[RollingThunder]

Really? How many people died? I'll raise you swimming pools. Swimming pools in the US,
drown more people then all your storms combined. A tsunami will drown more but I think even you won't try to attribute a tsunami to global warming...or will you?

In a moment of boredom, I bothered to check up on the walleyedretard's claims, even though I know he lies constantly.

From the CDC's Unintentional Drowning: Fact Sheet

In 2007, there were 3,443 fatal unintentional drownings (non-boating related) in the United States, averaging ten deaths per day. An additional 496 people died from drowning in boating-related incidents.1,2
More than one in five people who die from drowning are children 14 and younger.1

Natual Water Settings (such as lakes, rivers, or the ocean). The percent of drownings in natural water settings increases with age. When a location was known, 65% of drownings among those 15 years and older occurred in natural water settings.8

So, let's assume that 2007 was a fairly typical year and start with the total number of deaths by drowning (non-boating) which is 3,443. One fifth or a bit more of those are children 14 and younger which gives us close to 700 there, let's say, with some unknown but fairly large percentage of them dying in swimming pools. Of the approx 2,750 people 15 and over who drown in that year, 65%, or about 1800, didn't do it in swimming pools leaving about 960 who may have died in pools. Let's be generous and say all of them did and all of the kids which gives us about 1700 swimming pool deaths per year.

It's difficult to find a total figure on weather disaster related deaths per year but I did find a few items...

2011 was an exceptionally destructive and deadly year for tornadoes; worldwide, at least 576 people perished due to tornadoes

That's just tornadoes. We would still have to look at all of the hurricane, tropical storm and tropical cyclone disasters. Here's a recent one that struck Central America.

Tropical Storm Agatha (2010)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Total Fatalities - 190

I can just hear ol' walleyed muttering: "still nowhere near 1700 swimming pool deaths"....LOL...

....of course, so far, we've just scratched the surface of weather disaster related deaths....here's a big one from just a few years ago that gives some sense of the scale of the kind of weather disasters Old Rocks was talking about and the walleyedretard was idiotically trying to compare to swimming pool deaths just in the USA. And of course, when people die in swimming pools, it doesn't result in billions of dollars in associated damages like some of these tropical cyclones and hurricanes have.

Cyclone Nargis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The cyclone made landfall in Burma on Friday, May 2, 2008, causing catastrophic destruction and at least 138,000 fatalities.

Gee, walleyed.....138,000 deaths from just one storm....that's equal to over 80 years of swimming pool deaths.....now do you see why people call you a retard???

These meatheads think that natural catastrophies(sic) started only after 1998!!!

No, silly retard, we can see that climate/weather related disasters are increasing in numbers and severity as more energy accumulates in the system and atmospheric water vapor levels rise. As usual, you are completely clueless which is not surprising given your official position on anything scientific.

The Kookster's Official Position on Science​

***

 

[CrusaderFrank]

In a moment of boredom, I bothered to check up on the walleyedretard's claims, even though I know he lies constantly.

From the CDC's Unintentional Drowning: Fact Sheet

In 2007, there were 3,443 fatal unintentional drownings (non-boating related) in the United States, averaging ten deaths per day. An additional 496 people died from drowning in boating-related incidents.1,2
More than one in five people who die from drowning are children 14 and younger.1

Natual Water Settings (such as lakes, rivers, or the ocean). The percent of drownings in natural water settings increases with age. When a location was known, 65% of drownings among those 15 years and older occurred in natural water settings.8

So, let's assume that 2007 was a fairly typical year and start with the total number of deaths by drowning (non-boating) which is 3,443. One fifth or a bit more of those are children 14 and younger which gives us close to 700 there, let's say, with some unknown but fairly large percentage of them dying in swimming pools. Of the approx 2,750 people 15 and over who drown in that year, 65%, or about 1800, didn't do it in swimming pools leaving about 960 who may have died in pools. Let's be generous and say all of them did and all of the kids which gives us about 1700 swimming pool deaths per year.

It's difficult to find a total figure on weather disaster related deaths per year but I did find a few items...

2011 was an exceptionally destructive and deadly year for tornadoes; worldwide, at least 576 people perished due to tornadoes

That's just tornadoes. We would still have to look at all of the hurricane, tropical storm and tropical cyclone disasters. Here's a recent one that struck Central America.

Tropical Storm Agatha (2010)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Total Fatalities - 190

I can just hear ol' walleyed muttering: "still nowhere near 1700 swimming pool deaths"....LOL...

....of course, so far, we've just scratched the surface of weather disaster related deaths....here's a big one from just a few years ago that gives some sense of the scale of the kind of weather disasters Old Rocks was talking about and the walleyedretard was idiotically trying to compare to swimming pool deaths just in the USA. And of course, when people die in swimming pools, it doesn't result in billions of dollars in associated damages like some of these tropical cyclones and hurricanes have.

Cyclone Nargis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The cyclone made landfall in Burma on Friday, May 2, 2008, causing catastrophic destruction and at least 138,000 fatalities.

Gee, walleyed.....138,000 deaths from just one storm....that's equal to over 80 years of swimming pool deaths.....now do you see why people call you a retard???

These meatheads think that natural catastrophies(sic) started only after 1998!!!

No, silly retard, we can see that climate/weather related disasters are increasing in numbers and severity as more energy accumulates in the system and atmospheric water vapor levels rise. As usual, you are completely clueless which is not surprising given your official position on anything scientific.

The Kookster's Official Position on Science​

***

So, now water vapor is the culprit?

 

[RollingThunder]

So, now water vapor is the culprit?

No CrazyF*ckhead, in your case the culprit responsible for your retardation is probably just lousy genes, but it's certainly possible that you were dropped on your head repeatedly when you were an infant.

 

[westwall]

So, now water vapor is the culprit?

No CrazyF*ckhead, in your case the culprit responsible for your retardation is probably just lousy genes, but it's certainly possible that you were dropped on your head repeatedly when you were an infant.

So what's your excuse for being such a colossal idiot? Dropped once from a real great height?

 

[skookerasbil]

In a moment of boredom, I bothered to check up on the walleyedretard's claims, even though I know he lies constantly.

From the CDC's Unintentional Drowning: Fact Sheet

In 2007, there were 3,443 fatal unintentional drownings (non-boating related) in the United States, averaging ten deaths per day. An additional 496 people died from drowning in boating-related incidents.1,2
More than one in five people who die from drowning are children 14 and younger.1

Natual Water Settings (such as lakes, rivers, or the ocean). The percent of drownings in natural water settings increases with age. When a location was known, 65% of drownings among those 15 years and older occurred in natural water settings.8

So, let's assume that 2007 was a fairly typical year and start with the total number of deaths by drowning (non-boating) which is 3,443. One fifth or a bit more of those are children 14 and younger which gives us close to 700 there, let's say, with some unknown but fairly large percentage of them dying in swimming pools. Of the approx 2,750 people 15 and over who drown in that year, 65%, or about 1800, didn't do it in swimming pools leaving about 960 who may have died in pools. Let's be generous and say all of them did and all of the kids which gives us about 1700 swimming pool deaths per year.

It's difficult to find a total figure on weather disaster related deaths per year but I did find a few items...

2011 was an exceptionally destructive and deadly year for tornadoes; worldwide, at least 576 people perished due to tornadoes

That's just tornadoes. We would still have to look at all of the hurricane, tropical storm and tropical cyclone disasters. Here's a recent one that struck Central America.

Tropical Storm Agatha (2010)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Total Fatalities - 190

I can just hear ol' walleyed muttering: "still nowhere near 1700 swimming pool deaths"....LOL...

....of course, so far, we've just scratched the surface of weather disaster related deaths....here's a big one from just a few years ago that gives some sense of the scale of the kind of weather disasters Old Rocks was talking about and the walleyedretard was idiotically trying to compare to swimming pool deaths just in the USA. And of course, when people die in swimming pools, it doesn't result in billions of dollars in associated damages like some of these tropical cyclones and hurricanes have.

Cyclone Nargis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The cyclone made landfall in Burma on Friday, May 2, 2008, causing catastrophic destruction and at least 138,000 fatalities.

Gee, walleyed.....138,000 deaths from just one storm....that's equal to over 80 years of swimming pool deaths.....now do you see why people call you a retard???

These meatheads think that natural catastrophies(sic) started only after 1998!!!

No, silly retard, we can see that climate/weather related disasters are increasing in numbers and severity as more energy accumulates in the system and atmospheric water vapor levels rise. As usual, you are completely clueless which is not surprising given your official position on anything scientific.

The Kookster's Official Position on Science​

***

Thats right........storms and other weather events before 1998 only killed a handful!!


What was I thinking???


But the CLOUD experiment pwns you and all the other fucking k00ks!!!


Oh.....and I almost forgot.................

C'mon s0n........you've only had 15 weeks to find ONE!!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So, now water vapor is the culprit?

No CrazyF*ckhead, in your case the culprit responsible for your retardation is probably just lousy genes, but it's certainly possible that you were dropped on your head repeatedly when you were an infant.

Long on insults, short on science.

How is it you're so smart and you can't figures out why you don't have a single lab experiment to show us how a 100PPM increase in CO2 does ANY of the things you say it does.

Not once

Not ever

 

[skookerasbil]

Kevin Myers: Energy policy based on renewables will win hearts but won't protect their owners from frostbite and death due to exposure

Russia's main gas-company, Gazprom, was unable to meet demand last weekend as blizzards swept across Europe, and over three hundred people died. Did anyone even think of deploying our wind turbines to make good the energy shortfall from Russia?

Of course not. We all know that windmills are a self-indulgent and sanctimonious luxury whose purpose is to make us feel good. Had Europe genuinely depended on green energy on Friday, by Sunday thousands would be dead from frostbite and exposure, and the EU would have suffered an economic body blow to match that of Japan's tsunami a year ago. No electricity means no water, no trams, no trains, no airports, no traffic lights, no phone systems, no sewerage, no factories, no service stations, no office lifts, no central heating and even no hospitals, once their generators run out of fuel.

Modern cities are incredibly fragile organisms, which tremble on the edge of disaster the entire time. During a severe blizzard, it is electricity alone that prevents a midwinter urban holocaust. We saw what adverse weather can do, when 15,000 people died in the heatwave that hit France in August 2003. But those deaths were spread over a month. Last weekend's weather, without energy, could have caused many tens of thousands of deaths over a couple of days.

Why does the entire green spectrum, which now incorporates most conventional parties across Europe, deny the most obvious of truths? To play lethal games with our energy systems in order to honour the whimsical god of climate change is as intelligent and scientific as the Aztec sacrifice of their young. Actually, it is far more frivolous, because at least the Aztecs knew how many people they were sacrificing: no one has the least idea of the loss of life that might result from the EU embracing "green" energy policies.

Frau Merkel has announced that Germany is going to phase out nuclear power, simply because of the Japanese tsunami. Well, that is like basing water-collection policies in Rhineland-Westphalia on the monsoon cycle of Borneo. As I was saying last week, the Germans have a powerfully emotional attachment to everything that is "green", and an energy policy based on renewables will usually win German hearts. But it will not protect the owners of those hearts from frostbite and death due to exposure, for wind can often be not so much a Renewable as an Unusable, and also an Unpredictable, an Unstorable, and -- normally when it's very cold -- an Unmovable.

The seriousness of this is hard to exaggerate. The temperature in the Baltic countries last weekend was -33 degrees Celsius. The Eurasian landmass from Calais to Naples to Siberia was an icefield in which hundreds of millions of people were trapped. Without coal, oil and nuclear energy, mass deaths of the old and the young would have occurred on the first night. Three nights on of such conditions, and even the physically fit would have been dying of exposure, as the temperature inside dwellings fell and began to match that of the outside, an inverse image of what happened during the French heatwave 10 years ago, when there was no escape from the heat.

Yet you will see nowhere in Dail Eireann, or Brussels, or the Palace of Westminster, a serious discussion about energy policies based on these realities, or which acknowledges that wind usually doesn't blow when it is very cold, or that even when you have strong and steady winds blowing, you will still have to have created a parallel and duplicate energy supply to provide cover for when the wind stops. And merely to create that standby energy system will generate a zillion tons of carbon dioxide.

Wind power in Ireland actually produces only 22pc of its capacity: would you spend ¿100,000 on a car if it meant that ¿78,000 of the purchase price was wasted? It gets worse. On a really cold day, we actually need about 5,000 megawatts, but yesterday wind was producing under 50 megawatts: a grand total of 1pc of requirements.


Yet despite such appalling figures, we legally prohibit civil servants from even looking at the nuclear option. They won't even take a phone-call on the subject. Instead, the fiction has taken hold amongst our media classes that we are close to being an exporter of renewable energy through the much-vaunted interconnector with Britain. But this is grotesquely untrue. We shall actually be exporting through the connector only 3pc of the time, and importing 86pc, with the system otherwise idle.

Mad, isn't it? And madder still that RTE or the BBC will continue to trot out their pet wind-enthusiasts to bluster balderdash and poppycock about global warming and how renewables are the solution -- and without the contrary point of view ever being given an airing. This is dogma, as created, promulgated and enforced by the John Charles McQuaids of our time -- and if sceptics are not actually anathematised from the pulpit, they are ruthlessly and systematically ignored. These dishonest, hypocritical and deceitful energy policies are now widely accepted by our political and teaching classes as being the very embodiment of environmentalist virtue. Such imbecilic virtue, if implemented as energy policy across Europe, could have brought about a human catastrophe last weekend.

Kevin Myers: Energy policy based on renewables will win hearts but won't protect their owners from frostbite and death due to exposure - Kevin Myers, Columnists - Independent.ie



Like I always say...............fucking k00ks!!! The people lose with k00ks and the k00ks are losing...........because people dont want to freeze their asses off and die overnight!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

On "Weak Science".................

Breaking Global Warming Taboos: 'I Feel Duped on Climate Change' - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

 

[waltky]

Climate Change Rapidly Melting Everest...

Son of Famed Sherpa, Experts: Climate Change Rapidly Melting Everest
June 28, 2016 - After bearing witness to the gigantic mountain's two deadliest years on record, some 400 climbers are celebrating recent ascents of Mt. Everest, the first expeditions to summit successfully since the 2014 climbing season.

Although six climbers, including one Sherpa, died during the 2016 season, experts say the string of deadly avalanches and earthquakes that forced repeated evacuations of the mountain, which claimed at least 40 lives over the past 48 months, may not be a thing of the past. “It is shrinking,” Dr. Nima Namgyal Sherpa, an Everest expedition organizer, told VOA’s Tibetan Service via satellite phone from the Nepal-side Everest base camp.“It's melting every year.” While climbers and expedition organizers have long said there are good years and bad years, lucky seasons and unlucky ones, scientists and locals alike now say the mountain's environmental conditions have been irrevocably altered.

Trekkers make their way to Dingboche, a popular Mount Everest base camp, in Pangboche, Nepal​

Norbu Tenzing Norgay, son of the first man known to have summited alongside Sir Edmund Hillary, Sherpa Tenzing Norgay, says some glaciers in the region have undergone such extensive melting that crevasses are nearly too wide to traverse. “My brother was on a mountain recently where it was normally full of snow, and he said he wasn’t going back because there wasn't enough,” Norgay told VOA. “He had to use more ladders to cross those crevasses.” “Last year around this time, it was much colder, but this year it is unusually warm," said Dr. Nima Namgyal Sherpa, who has spent time on the mountain for each of the past six seasons.“Usually we have these streams coming down in the end of May, but now it comes quite early for the season.”

Satellite data

Joseph Shea, senior glacier hydrologist at the Kathmandu-based International Center for Integrated Mountain Development, says satellite data that measures glacial volume shows at least one square meter of annual shrinkage.Last year, an international research team lead by Shea predicted that 70 to 99 percent of Everest glaciers would disappear by 2100, and that the melting has reached an unstoppable point. “The glaciers there are in retreat, so we’re losing area every year,” he told VOA Tibetan.“But more importantly, we are losing volumes. "Even if you stop emitting all the greenhouse gas and climate stops changing today, you’ll still have glacier losses because the system is now out of balance, it's out of equilibrium,” he added.“So, even for the next 150 years, the glacial retreat will continue without any additional forcing.”

Long term, far-reaching consequences

 

[skookerasbil]

lol........"rapidly"

 

[Old Rocks]

The Karakoram
The Karakoram is the one range where a mix of expansion and retreat is seen. The anomalous expansions are confined to the highest relief glaciers and appeared suddenly and sporadically (Hewitt, 2005). After decades of decline, glaciers in the highest parts of the central Karakoram expanded, advanced, and thickened in the late 1990s. Many of the largest glaciers in the Karakoram are still retreating, including the largest Baltoro, Panmah and Biafo Glacier, albeit slowly (Hewitt, 2011). Measurements indicate a possible mass-gain from 2002-2006 with a decrease thereafter (Bolch et al, 2012), (Cogley, 2012); the estimated contribution of the glaciers of the Karakoram to sea level rise is lower than previously suggested (Gardelle et al, 2012).

Looks as if the overall picture is one of increasing melt.

 

[mamooth]

The whole thread is the sort of cherrypicking fallacy that deniers depend on.

That is, most glaciers are retreating, a few are expanding, so deniers deliberately pretend that only the expanding glaciers exist, a form of lying by omission.

And contrary to denier whoppers, nobody ever said every glacier would retreat. Glaciers that are high enough to remain "really freakin' cold" might expand, due to more precipitation. And as RT's link indicated, that's exactly what is seen. Low altitude glaciers in the region are retreating, high altitude glaciers aren't. The people live by the low altitude glaciers, hence the problem.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Well this is interesting. Scientists are still concerned about the rest of the world's ice caps and glaciers, but this set of glaciers have lost no ice.

Just a quick aside, they busted a man stealing glacial ice for restaurants to serve drinks with in Chile. Tons of ice. Tons and Tons.

Designer ice cubes as it were.

Global warming or white russians for tourists using Jorge Montt ice cubes

Here's the article from the Guardian.

The world's greatest snow-capped peaks, which run in a chain from the Himalayas to Tian Shan on the border of China and Kyrgyzstan, have lost no ice over the last decade, new research shows.

The discovery has stunned scientists, who had believed that around 50bn tonnes of meltwater were being shed each year and not being replaced by new snowfall.

The study is the first to survey all the world's icecaps and glaciers and was made possible by the use of satellite data. Overall, the contribution of melting ice outside the two largest caps – Greenland and Antarctica – is much less then previously estimated, with the lack of ice loss in the Himalayas and the other high peaks of Asia responsible for most of the discrepancy.

Bristol University glaciologist Prof Jonathan Bamber, who was not part of the research team, said: "The very unexpected result was the negligible mass loss from high mountain Asia, which is not significantly different from zero."

The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years, study shows | Environment | The Guardian

Paging Mr. Gore.....Paging Mr. Gore....

If they lost ice, global warming; if they lost no ice therefore climate change.

We have consensus

Science = settled

 

[Sunni Man]

 

[Coyote]

Mod note - this thread is revived from 2012 - posts from then aren't subject to todays Zone 2 rules, so they'll left in place, but any responses are. Remember - posts must include topical content