Vanishing Glaciers Of The Greater Himalaya - Photographic evidence

[RollingThunder]

Mann needed to refine the chart to show the MWP? Didn't he know about the MWP when he made the first chart? I heard about the MWP when I was a little kid.

You'd think the only refinement would be the recent data. You know, the data he had to manipulate and trick to "hide the decline".

Maybe Mann should learn a bit about how science works. From scientists, not political hacks.

OK, Todd, you dumb fuck. Mann is a scientist, not a willfully ignorant ass like you. And, were you to bother reading the damned graphs, you would see that many of the later ones were done by other researchers completely independent of Mann.

Yeah, he's a scientist who falsified data to "hide the decline".
A scientist who hid the MWP to make it look warmer now than it was back then.

Still sticking to those crazy denier cult myths, eh numbskull? LOL.

No data was "falsified" and temperatures have not "declined". This was explained to you and you're apparently still too stupid to get it.

The MWP was not global and it was not warmer then than it is now. More pointless denier cult myths. It would make no difference to the conclusions of the climate scientists if the MWP had been warmer or more wide spread because it just isn't that significant in the context of all of other evidence for an anthropogenic cause for the current abrupt warming trend.

 

[gslack]

OK, Todd, you dumb fuck. Mann is a scientist, not a willfully ignorant ass like you. And, were you to bother reading the damned graphs, you would see that many of the later ones were done by other researchers completely independent of Mann.

Yeah, he's a scientist who falsified data to "hide the decline".
A scientist who hid the MWP to make it look warmer now than it was back then.

Still sticking to those crazy denier cult myths, eh numbskull? LOL.

No data was "falsified" and temperatures have not "declined". This was explained to you and you're apparently still too stupid to get it.

The MWP was not global and it was not warmer then than it is now. More pointless denier cult myths. It would make no difference to the conclusions of the climate scientists if the MWP had been warmer or more wide spread because it just isn't that significant in the context of all of other evidence for an anthropogenic cause for the current abrupt warming trend.

And so far warming now has not been global either. Its warmer some places, colder some places, thats how climate works.

The MWP covered the North Atlantic region, and by coincidence all the reports of Ice loss seem to focus primarily on what region? The north Atlantic and arctic regions... Seems a bit odd that we are expected to accept todays ice loss in a region as a global crisis but when it happened years ago its of no significance on a global scale...

You people need to start using you head and thinking.....

 

[RollingThunder]

Yeah, he's a scientist who falsified data to "hide the decline".
A scientist who hid the MWP to make it look warmer now than it was back then.

Still sticking to those crazy denier cult myths, eh numbskull? LOL.

No data was "falsified" and temperatures have not "declined". This was explained to you and you're apparently still too stupid to get it.

The MWP was not global and it was not warmer then than it is now. More pointless denier cult myths. It would make no difference to the conclusions of the climate scientists if the MWP had been warmer or more wide spread because it just isn't that significant in the context of all of other evidence for an anthropogenic cause for the current abrupt warming trend.

And so far warming now has not been global either. Its(sic) warmer some places, colder some places, thats how climate works.

Both stupid and wrong, as is usually the case with your posts. The world average temperatures have increased. It is not in some mythical balance where "its(sic) warmer some places" but that is offset by it being "colder some places". That is not "how climate works". That is your own personal retarded and mistaken notion of how climate works. Temperatures are rising pretty much everywhere on Earth, some places more than others.

 

[IanC]

Mann made that first chart with data available at the time. The further refinements made in the last few years up to present show the MWP, and continue to show the hockey stick. Do you understand that science is a continual development of theory and hypothesis, driven by data? Mann's graph was the first, like most first efforts, crude compared to later efforts. He used the data he had, and those following added more data. The result was the same, just a more ugly hockey stick.

Todd, learn a bit about how science works. From scientists, not the poltical hacks you have been quoting.

Mann needed to refine the chart to show the MWP? Didn't he know about the MWP when he made the first chart? I heard about the MWP when I was a little kid.

You'd think the only refinement would be the recent data. You know, the data he had to manipulate and trick to "hide the decline".

Maybe Mann should learn a bit about how science works. From scientists, not political hacks.

OK, Todd, you dumb fuck. Mann is a scientist, not a willfully ignorant ass like you. And, were you to bother reading the damned graphs, you would see that many of the later ones were done by other researchers completely independent of Mann.

no Rocks, you are the dumb fuck who is willfully ignorant of the misuse of temperature proxies no matter how often it is pointed out to you. there are a few hundred proxy sets with only a handful showing a hockey stick shape, the rest are mostly noise. the studies that support Mann's work all take a few of those HS shaped proxy sets and add in some noise from the large set of non-HS proxies and then say, "look, it is consistent with Mann".

when you put a spoonful of shit into a pint of ice cream you get a pint of shit. it has been shown many times that removing the handful of favourite HS proxies also removes the hockey stick shape. not only that but many of the treering HS shaped proxy sets have been updated but the results were disappointing so only the old sets are typically used. other types of proxies like the Tiljander sediment cores are used even though it is well known that they are unsuitable for the purpose and indeed have been turned upsidedown!

just last year a widely publicized study on sea level rise not only included Mann's use of the upsidedown Tiljander cores but it also arbitrarily added a 0.5K offset to the HadCRU temp data to make the graph splice together. he changed actual measured data to match a reconstruction with a large uncertainty!!!!!! dont you think a real scientist would do it the other way around?

I could go on about the little half lies that started in the nineties, and when no one called them out they became bigger and bigger until the big lie of Mann's Hockey Stick was born. but no one really cares anyway.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes, you could go on and continue that nonsense, Ian.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

OK, Todd, you dumb fuck. Mann is a scientist, not a willfully ignorant ass like you. And, were you to bother reading the damned graphs, you would see that many of the later ones were done by other researchers completely independent of Mann.

Yeah, he's a scientist who falsified data to "hide the decline".
A scientist who hid the MWP to make it look warmer now than it was back then.

Still sticking to those crazy denier cult myths, eh numbskull? LOL.

No data was "falsified" and temperatures have not "declined". This was explained to you and you're apparently still too stupid to get it.

The MWP was not global and it was not warmer then than it is now. More pointless denier cult myths. It would make no difference to the conclusions of the climate scientists if the MWP had been warmer or more wide spread because it just isn't that significant in the context of all of other evidence for an anthropogenic cause for the current abrupt warming trend.

No data was "falsified"

He manipulated the recent tree ring data. Why do that if the truth is on his side?

The MWP was not global

Prove it.

and it was not warmer then than it is now

Warm enough for the Vikings to settle Greenland. And a thriving wine industry in England.
And all with no AGW.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Still sticking to those crazy denier cult myths, eh numbskull? LOL.

No data was "falsified" and temperatures have not "declined". This was explained to you and you're apparently still too stupid to get it.

The MWP was not global and it was not warmer then than it is now. More pointless denier cult myths. It would make no difference to the conclusions of the climate scientists if the MWP had been warmer or more wide spread because it just isn't that significant in the context of all of other evidence for an anthropogenic cause for the current abrupt warming trend.

And so far warming now has not been global either. Its(sic) warmer some places, colder some places, thats how climate works.

Both stupid and wrong, as is usually the case with your posts. The world average temperatures have increased. It is not in some mythical balance where "its(sic) warmer some places" but that is offset by it being "colder some places". That is not "how climate works". That is your own personal retarded and mistaken notion of how climate works. Temperatures are rising pretty much everywhere on Earth, some places more than others.

The world average temperatures have increased

How do you measure average world temperatures? Spell it out.

 

[gslack]

Still sticking to those crazy denier cult myths, eh numbskull? LOL.

No data was "falsified" and temperatures have not "declined". This was explained to you and you're apparently still too stupid to get it.

The MWP was not global and it was not warmer then than it is now. More pointless denier cult myths. It would make no difference to the conclusions of the climate scientists if the MWP had been warmer or more wide spread because it just isn't that significant in the context of all of other evidence for an anthropogenic cause for the current abrupt warming trend.

And so far warming now has not been global either. Its(sic) warmer some places, colder some places, thats how climate works.

Both stupid and wrong, as is usually the case with your posts. The world average temperatures have increased. It is not in some mythical balance where "its(sic) warmer some places" but that is offset by it being "colder some places". That is not "how climate works". That is your own personal retarded and mistaken notion of how climate works. Temperatures are rising pretty much everywhere on Earth, some places more than others.

Stop editing my quotes weasel!!!!

Thats a TOS violation scumbag they just posted new rules on this very think telling us all not to do it.

If are going to quote my posts than you show my posts in the quote you little POS...

 

[RollingThunder]

And so far warming now has not been global either. Its(sic) warmer some places, colder some places, thats how climate works.

Both stupid and wrong, as is usually the case with your posts. The world average temperatures have increased. It is not in some mythical balance where "its(sic) warmer some places" but that is offset by it being "colder some places". That is not "how climate works". That is your own personal retarded and mistaken notion of how climate works. Temperatures are rising pretty much everywhere on Earth, some places more than others.

Stop editing my quotes weasel!!!!

Thats a TOS violation scumbag they just posted new rules on this very think telling us all not to do it.

If are going to quote my posts than you show my posts in the quote you little POS...

Fuck you, you retarded asswipe!

 

[westwall]

Both stupid and wrong, as is usually the case with your posts. The world average temperatures have increased. It is not in some mythical balance where "its(sic) warmer some places" but that is offset by it being "colder some places". That is not "how climate works". That is your own personal retarded and mistaken notion of how climate works. Temperatures are rising pretty much everywhere on Earth, some places more than others.

Stop editing my quotes weasel!!!!

Thats a TOS violation scumbag they just posted new rules on this very think telling us all not to do it.

If are going to quote my posts than you show my posts in the quote you little POS...

Fuck you, you retarded asswipe!

I guess you inhaled too much MTBE huh? Civil conversation is impossible for you to accomplish now.

 

[RollingThunder]

From the Himalayas to the our own Pacific Northwest, glaciers are melting away and starting to disappear entirely. Here is an interesting and informative article on the history and the retreat of those Northwest glaciers.

Our Vanishing Glaciers
(excerpts)

The white expanse of the White Chuck Glacier graced the slopes south of Glacier Peak for thousands of years, experiencing periods of advance and retreat until the 20th century. The last retreat, which began around 1930, culminated in the total disappearance of the north branch of the glacier in 2001. No more does this glacier dominate the headwaters of the White Chuck River, and its demise will alter the river’s hydrology to the detriment of late summer water supply and the salmon that return to this glacially fed river. So, why did this glacier disappear? And is the White Chuck indicative of the future of other Pacific Northwest glaciers?

White Chuck Glacier from Glacier Gap looking down the north branch
in 1973 (Neil Hinckley photo) and 2006 (Leor Pantilat photo).

When the climate becomes unfavorable, a glacier responds by melting upward from the lowest and warmest terminus portion. If this new footprint does not stabilize, this indicates disequilibrium with current climate, and the glacier will ultimately disappear. The clearest symptom of disequilibrium is thinning, which indicates a lack of a consistent accumulation zone where at least part of the year’s snowfall can survive through the following melt season. In order to to survive, a glacier needs 60 to 70 percent of its area to be accumulation zone. Of the twelve North Cascade glaciers we have been systematically remapping, nine are thinning as much in the accumulation zone as near the terminus, indicating the extent of glaciers in disequilibrium.

Eldorado from Forbidden Peak in 1979 and 1996. Note terminus position on the glacier’s
right. (Photos © Lowell Skoog)

These observations make clear that retreat of North Cascade glaciers is rapid and ubiquitous. All 47 glaciers monitored by our project are currently undergoing a significant retreat or have disappeared altogether. Ongoing temperature rises combined with a reduction in snow accumulation in the North Cascades have resulted in widespread disequilibrium. Even the wet winter of 2007 yielded barely above-average snowpack in the mountains as more of that precipitation fell as rain. The net loss over the last 20 years is a significant portion of the total glacier volume, estimated at 18 to 32 percent. Sadly, prevailing conditions provide little evidence that North Cascade glaciers are close to equilibrium. Their ongoing thinning indicates that all of the glaciers will continue to retreat into the foreseeable future.

Honeycomb Glacier in 1977 (Bill Arundell photo, courtesy Mauri Pelto) and
in 2006 (Lowell Skoog photo).

©2007 Northwest Mountaineering Journal

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

 

[westwall]

Oh looky here, not all glaciers are retreating! Who woulda thunk it! Of course the source is the USGS so it's automatically suspect.

Advancing Glacier Coming Close to Blocking Fiord Near Yakutat, Alaska

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 13, 2002, west-view from above Russell Fiord, looking toward Yakutat Bay and Turner Glacier. The advancing terminus of Hubbard Glacier is in the foreground. The point of closure is not visible, blocked from view by Gilbert Point. USGS Photograph by Bruce F. Molnia (6/13/02-24)
June 13, 2002, south-view from above the advancing terminus of Hubbard Glacier, of the mouth of Russell Fiord, showing the glacier margin and the push moraine that is blocked the entrance of the fiord. The push moraine is composed of sediment bulldozed from the floor of Russell Fiord by the advancing ice. Some of this sediment can be seen in contact with the bedrock on the south wall of the fiord. Water exiting Russell Fiord has cut a channel into the top of the moraine. USGS Photograph by Bruce F. Molnia (6/13/02-29)

June 13, 2002, southwest-view from above the advancing terminus of Hubbard Glacier, of the mouth of Russell Fiord, showing the glacier margin and the push moraine that blocked the entrance of the fiord. The push moraine is composed of sediment bulldozed from the floor of Russell Fiord by the advancing ice. Some of this sediment can be seen in contact with the bedrock on the south wall of the fiord. Water exiting Russell Fiord has cut a channel into the top of the moraine. USGS Photograph by Bruce F. Molnia (6/13/02-30)






Advancing Glacier Coming Close to Blocking Fiord Near Yakutat, Alaska

 

[westwall]

Whoops! Here's another one! But hey it's only Scientific American, tghey don't know anything!


Advancing Alaskan Glacier Holds Clues to Global Sea Level Rise

Scientists aim to find out why an Alaska glacier is ignoring all climate signals as it advances to the sea--and what that means for sea levels around the world.

By Nathan Rice and The Daily Climate | January 4, 2011 |7


MYSTERY IN ICE: Whether Alaskan glaciers--and ice sheets the world over--advance to the sea or melt down will help determine sea levels for centuries to come.Image: Frank Kovalchek, courtesy Flickr

ICY BAY, Alaska—The icebergs looked impenetrable. Roman Motyka needed a route through.

"If you see an opening anywhere, let me know," said the University of Alaska Fairbanks glaciologist, at the wheel of a small skiff puttering through the ice-choked bay off the Gulf of Alaska.

Beyond the iceberg maze loomed the nose of a glacier that, contrary to a warming climate, is advancing into the sea. Motyka and his team were here - in one of the most ice-covered regions on the planet - to find out why.



Advancing Alaskan Glacier Holds Clues to Global Sea Level Rise: Scientific American

 

[westwall]

Uh Oh! Here are another two of the bastards! How dare they advance a kilometer since 1985! Don't they know they're supposed to be in inexorable retreat?


"Both the Franz Josef and Fox Glaciers are included in the Te Waipounamu World Heritage Area due to their uniqueness. They were named after the emperor of Austria-Hungary and a former New Zealand premier. Despite their consistent retreat throughout most of the 20th Century, they have advanced over 1 km since 1985."


About Franz Josef

 

[RollingThunder]

Oh looky here, not all glaciers are retreating! Who woulda thunk it! Of course the source is the USGS so it's automatically suspect.

LOLOLOL.....you're giving yourself away again, walleyed. "Who woulda thunk it"???? Well, just about anyone who had actually read anything about this issue instead of just parroting silly propaganda. Everyone who does actually look into this issue will find that while most glaciers are retreating and shrinking, a few in certain select locations are still advancing and/or growing. It is a standard denier cult tactic when debating the world's shrinking glaciers to cherry-pick the few that are growing and say: "see, glaciers are not shrinking because here's one that is growing". LOLOL. Once again you reveal yourself to be one of those denier cult cherry-pickers who tries to obscure the long term trends. You ignore the findings of the actual scientific studies of the glaciers that are advancing which say that it is mostly due to the increased precipitation due to global warming increasing the snowfall amounts in a few select regions.

I started this thread talking about the vanishing glaciers of the Himalayas and you just responded with some links to three articles about advancing tidewater glaciers in Alaska. Aside from cherry-picking a few glaciers that are advancing out of the many tens of thousands worldwide that are shrinking, you cherry-picked only select parts of the article from Scientific American (you probably don't even read the articles you cite, you just parrot quotes off some denier cult blog). From the one from SA on the Yahtse glacier - "But as the Yahtse advances, it is also thinning..."

The vast majority of the world's glaciers are losing ice mass through shrinking and thinning. Some glaciers are sliding into the oceans more rapidly because the melt water passes to the bottom of the glacier and lubricates it.

Here's the real story on the shrinkage of the world's glaciers in these graphs.

Long term changes in glacier volume adapted from Cogley 2009.

The World Glacier Monitoring Service tracks mass balance
measurements for a sample of glaciers from around the world.
The table above shows the glacier mass balance over 2002
and 2003 (negative values indicate shrinkage)

 

[gslack]

Spam alert!

 

[RollingThunder]

Spam alert!

Yeah, you should definitately include that warning every time you post something, slackjawedidiot.

 

[RollingThunder]

Here's some recent news from scientists in China about the melting of the glaciers in Tibet.

Glaciers in Tibet melting due to global warming: Researchers
CORPORATE PRESS RELEASES (INDIA) news desk
October 24, 2011
(excerpts)

Glaciers in southwest China’s Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau, a key source of major rivers in this country and those in the Indian subcontinent, are melting “faster than ever” under the influence of global warming, Chinese researchers have warned. Results from the study show that a large area of the glaciers has melted in the 2,400-square-kilometre region. Glaciers are the largest source of fresh water on the planet. They are also a reliable indicator of climate change, and easy for scientists to observe.

An expert with Qinghai’s Three-River Headwaters Office said the cluster of some 80 glaciers around the Aemye Ma-chhen Range, the source of the Yellow River headwaters, is shrinking especially fast. Cheng Haining, a senior engineer with the provincial surveying and mapping bureau, said about 5.3 per cent, or 70 square kilometres, of the glaciers in Yangtze headwaters had melted away over the past three decades. Cheng said that “the melting of glaciers is closely connected with climate change.” He said the data collected by three meteorological stations over the past 50 years show a continued rise in the average temperature of the three-river headwaters area. The winter of 2009, for example, was the warmest in 15 years, according to the provincial climate centre. Last year the average temperature there hit a five-decade record high. Local residents in Yushu Tibet Autonomous Prefecture said Lancang River froze in November in the 1970s, but it did not freeze at all in 1999. It is estimated that 70 per cent of the glaciers in Lancang River headwaters have disappeared due to the warm weather, researchers said.

Xin Yuanhong, a senior engineer with the Qinghai Hydrography and Geology Study Centre, said the melting of the glaciers could lead to a water shortage and even a dry-up of rivers in the long run, and consequent ecological disasters like wetland retreat and desertification. “The Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau is among the regions worst hit by global warming. Consequently, this will have a deleterious effect on the global climate as well as the livelihood of Asian people,” Qin Dahe, a researcher with the Chinese Academy of Sciences, said.

Copyright © 2011. Corporate Press Releases (India). All Rights Reserved.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

 

[skookerasbil]

From the Himalayas to the our own Pacific Northwest, glaciers are melting away and starting to disappear entirely. Here is an interesting and informative article on the history and the retreat of those Northwest glaciers.

Our Vanishing Glaciers
(excerpts)

The white expanse of the White Chuck Glacier graced the slopes south of Glacier Peak for thousands of years, experiencing periods of advance and retreat until the 20th century. The last retreat, which began around 1930, culminated in the total disappearance of the north branch of the glacier in 2001. No more does this glacier dominate the headwaters of the White Chuck River, and its demise will alter the river’s hydrology to the detriment of late summer water supply and the salmon that return to this glacially fed river. So, why did this glacier disappear? And is the White Chuck indicative of the future of other Pacific Northwest glaciers?

White Chuck Glacier from Glacier Gap looking down the north branch
in 1973 (Neil Hinckley photo) and 2006 (Leor Pantilat photo).

When the climate becomes unfavorable, a glacier responds by melting upward from the lowest and warmest terminus portion. If this new footprint does not stabilize, this indicates disequilibrium with current climate, and the glacier will ultimately disappear. The clearest symptom of disequilibrium is thinning, which indicates a lack of a consistent accumulation zone where at least part of the year’s snowfall can survive through the following melt season. In order to to survive, a glacier needs 60 to 70 percent of its area to be accumulation zone. Of the twelve North Cascade glaciers we have been systematically remapping, nine are thinning as much in the accumulation zone as near the terminus, indicating the extent of glaciers in disequilibrium.

Eldorado from Forbidden Peak in 1979 and 1996. Note terminus position on the glacier’s
right. (Photos © Lowell Skoog)

These observations make clear that retreat of North Cascade glaciers is rapid and ubiquitous. All 47 glaciers monitored by our project are currently undergoing a significant retreat or have disappeared altogether. Ongoing temperature rises combined with a reduction in snow accumulation in the North Cascades have resulted in widespread disequilibrium. Even the wet winter of 2007 yielded barely above-average snowpack in the mountains as more of that precipitation fell as rain. The net loss over the last 20 years is a significant portion of the total glacier volume, estimated at 18 to 32 percent. Sadly, prevailing conditions provide little evidence that North Cascade glaciers are close to equilibrium. Their ongoing thinning indicates that all of the glaciers will continue to retreat into the foreseeable future.

Honeycomb Glacier in 1977 (Bill Arundell photo, courtesy Mauri Pelto) and
in 2006 (Lowell Skoog photo).

©2007 Northwest Mountaineering Journal

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

s0n.......you have the political IQ of a small marine battery terminal.

The country is 14 trillion in debt. The growth rate is anemic. Budget cuts are a comin'............

You think anybody ( besides a nutter) gives one crap about spending more government $$ on the fraudulent green industry? ( another went down this week......only cost 41 million this time )

Glaciers are gay.......and nobody gives a flying fuckk.



>>at this time, I defer to Polar Bear to respond with science realities<<

 

[skookerasbil]