WSJ: Himalayan Glaciers Are Melting at Furious Rate, New Study Shows

[gtopa1]

While everyone is focusing on Antarctica and Greenland, S Asia could lose much of it's Ag due to AGW.

""Glaciers across the Himalayas are melting at an extraordinary rate, with new research showing that the vast ice sheets there shrank 10 times faster in the past 40 years than during the previous seven centuries.

Avalanches, flooding and other effects of the accelerating loss of ice imperil residents in India, Nepal and Bhutan and threaten to disrupt agriculture for hundreds of millions of people across South Asia, according to the researchers. And since water from melting glaciers contributes to sea-level rise, glacial ice loss in the Himalayas also adds to the threat of inundation and related problems faced by coastal communities around the world.

“This part of the world is changing faster than perhaps anybody realized,” said Jonathan Carrivick, a University of Leeds glaciologist and the co-author of a paper detailing the research published Monday in the journal Scientific Reports. “It’s not just that the Himalayas are changing really fast, it’s that they’re changing ever faster.”
[.....]
The new finding comes as there is scientific consensus that ice loss from glaciers and polar ice sheets results from rising global temperatures caused by greenhouse-gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels."..."
[.....]
[.....]

Himalayan Glaciers Are Melting at Furious Rate, New Study Shows

Glaciers across the region are melting at an extraordinary rate, with new research showing that the vast ice sheets there shrank 10 times faster in the past 40 years than during the previous seven centuries.

www.wsj.com

Why are they angry??

Greg

 

[Stann]

Why are they angry??

Greg

Anger ? Concerned would be a better word. We in Nebraska are being to see the same thing in the Rockies. Colorado's demand on the Platte Rivers may make them go dry here in Nebraska in the future. More people and Less water is a bad mix. If we keep taping the Ogallala Aquifer faster than it's being replaced it will go dry.

 

[miketx]

And mine. Burning fossil fuels is what has created a warming planet. As far as volcanoes go, they are not very good at melting ice. Look at the number of volcanoes covered in ice in Iceland. And then there is the glacier growing inside Mt. St. Helens, cheek and jowl with a hot lava dome.

View attachment 579209

I power my house with glaciers!

 

[flacaltenn]

Fuck Bing, but your search criteria first returned:

LOL. "Debris" > "soot" > "aerosol".. what next, cow sneezes?

Yep, it's all that Chinese soot, goddammit! {"Gotta be soot dont ya think?"}

You're searching stinks. And it's NOT ME saying this. There are DOZENS of papers filed BEFORE our relationship with China got frosty and scientists could just use the BEST words to describe how ACTUAL pollution was a leading cause of killing ancient ice formations.

What you're missing here --- is that ANY honest objective scientists would NOT "bury the lead" to the BIGGEST CULPRIT in their "ice loss story" by NOT fingering carbon soot pollution DIRECTLY -- but dutifully referring to it as "debris".

THIS -- is how WOKE science now operates. And the Woking Dead have infiltrated MOST govt science institutions and the Universities to which toss bucks for funding. And GW -- because of it's solid metal connection to world politics is a CESSPOOL of this stuff.

 

[flacaltenn]

Fuck Bing, but your search criteria first returned:

LOL. "Debris" > "soot" > "aerosol".. what next, cow sneezes?

Yep, it's all that Chinese soot, goddammit! {"Gotta be soot dont ya think?"}

In fact dude, you have no idea WHAT you fished from google.

Hansen said that, in this case, warming is being accelerated by the decline of other industrial pollutants that they’ve cleaned from it.

Plunging sulfate aerosol emissions from industrial sources, particularly shipping, could lead global temperatures to surge well beyond the levels prescribed by the Paris Climate Agreement as soon as 2040 “unless appropriate countermeasures are taken,” Hansen wrote, together with Makiko Sato, in a monthly temperature analysis published in August by the Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions center at Columbia University’s Earth Institute.

This is NOT specifically about carbon soot. AEROSOLS are a much larger class of pollutants. And Hansen is discussing the ONES THAT STAY IN THE ATMOSPHERE. Like SO2, NOX, and other PRIMARY GAS pollutants. And he's telling you that since we CRACKED DOWN on these -- and the atmos is FAR cleaner because of that -- THAT IT HAS MADE EARTH A BIT WARMER.

Carbon SOOT falls to earth fairly quickly and is carried BY SURFACE WINDS !!!

No wonder you still like Google. Not for very discriminating users.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I don't like Google either. I've just hated Bill Gates and MS longer. Look, nobody's denied that soot has played a significant roll in GW. You just have some weird problem with them pointing to debris in this case instead. I got all that before. But go on, have at it anyway.

 

[abu afak]

Grumblenuts, don't listen to anything flacaltenn says.
It's deflection and misleading BS.
All an attempt to obfuscate AGW.

This is the NORMAL mode of operation for "GW Science". You get PAID for research that loosely blames man/CO2 and HIDES the other -- very often LARGER reasons for the problem.
NO ones' gonna fund your research if you are BLAMING the REAL polluters. Especially if their name is China.

Uh... "blames man/CO2 and Hides the other...," instead of "...BLAMING real polluters like China"

I hate to break this to you but China is "man" too.
(what a bizarre and deluded twist that is!)
And soot IS of course AGW too, and is from burning Carbon Fuels like coal, etc. No one is just blaming the USA (what you call 'man!') for AGW, and certainly not climate scientists.

What is the chemical equations for soot?​

""There are MANY chemical equations for the formation of soot. The exact formula depends on what is being burned and how much oxygen is used. Soot is, for the most part, amorphous Carbon and it is formed when an Organic material is burned in less oxygen than is need to convert all of the carbon in the organic compound to CO2."[/B]​

What is the chemical equations for soot? ​

1. China IS 'man' too. %$&^^%$^*
2. Soot coating IS AGW too. (Carbon from incomplete burning of Carbon fuels/low quality carbon fuels)
3. The problem has been noted in Greenland as well with 'our' soot/Carbon on it.
Man-Made Soot Contributed to Warming in Greenland in the Early 20th Century- All Images | NSF - National Science Foundation

So despite your Disingenuous and bizarre twisting, you affirmed AGW. (and you missed 'our' soot)
`

 

[abu afak]

flacaltenn
Part 2.
Specific source for Himalayas is mainly AGW-soot as well.

"....Overall, the work shows that, of worldwide sources, India's wildfires, Cooking fuel and Fossil Fuel Burning contribute the most soot to the mountain range and plateau region, followed by Fossil Fuel Burning in China and other East Asian countries.

Running the computer model in this way not only showed which source sent the most soot over, but also can determine which source would make the biggest impact if emissions are cut. The soot destination that changed the most was the northwest Plateau by cuts in central Asia's fossil fuel burning. Cuts in South Asia can effectively reduce the soot level on the entire plateau, especially in the Himalayas.".."

Source of Soot Warming The Tibetan Plateau Has Been Identified - SpaceRef

And Google is by far the best search engine save for the primacy of adds that make it free.

`

 

[Grumblenuts]

@Grumblenuts, don't listen to anything flacaltenn says.
It's deflection and misleading BS.
All an attempt to obfuscate AGW.

Oft self-conflicted aight, but he's usually a sport about it.

 

[Grumblenuts]

In fact dude, you have no idea WHAT you fished from google.

I knew exactly what it was. You forget my degree is in chemistry, soots. This stuff really ain't rocket science. You missed the point is all. Hansen wasn't guilty of what you had accused him of earlier. But nice try at deflection as abu afak easily notices as well.

 

[abu afak]

I knew exactly what it was. You forget my degree is in chemistry, soots. This stuff really ain't rocket science. You missed the point is all. Hansen wasn't guilty of what you had accused him of earlier. But nice try at deflection as abu afak easily notices as well.

He's a deflecting 100% FRAUD.
He can't even state his position on GW/AGW when pressed.
(see discussion above my link just below)
IT took me six posts to him to still get nothing in his sticky thread at the top of the section. (2 pages back there as he's multi-posted there to try and bury our exchange.)

He starts this intellectual sounding thread and he's a total wipe out.
Breathtakingly Ignorant.
He thinks all the warming talk has abated since it's been cooling since 2008!!! Which is astonishing Ignorant/Beyond belief.

!!!!
Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

I destroyed him forever. Zero credibility.

He's not only a deflecting Fraud, he is Ignorant of the continuing warming right through the 10 Warmest years.
Not only tied for warmest 2016/2020, but all the years in between 2008 and 2021.

100% Oblivious.

`

 

[Grumblenuts]

Okay. But there are much worse here in terms of deniers. That thread by flacaltenn was clearly an attempt to rein in some of the craziness a bit. Credit where due. It's pretty hopeless. This place is nuts.

 

[flacaltenn]

I don't like Google either. I've just hated Bill Gates and MS longer. Look, nobody's denied that soot has played a significant roll in GW. You just have some weird problem with them pointing to debris in this case instead. I got all that before. But go on, have at it anyway.

It's important to point stuff like that out because folks who RELY on "appeal to authority" NEED TO KNOW that a science paper is reward for funding REQUIRED to produce a certain result in many cases. LOTS OF MONEY for GW research, not that much any more for REAL POLLUTION -- like carbon soot. So if you've gone and mapped and researched and 15K different ice fields in the Himmies -- you're gonna get PUBLISHED with GW grant money -- NOT "soot money". And you're faced with DOWNPLAYING the MAJOR take-away -- that the ice CANNOT REBUILD because of coal and diesel and other soot producing activities in nearby India and China.. Thus the "weasel word" --- "debris".. Its a BigFuckingDeal !!!

There is "confirmation bias" along with pleasing the sponsor in a LOT of science areas now that are politically connected.

Yeah Gates turned flaky waay before Google ever turned a profit. But he's NOT as flaky as many conspiracy nuts make him out to be. He just has too close ties with China and the WEForum to be objective on tech or science anymore.

The ONLY role that "soot" plays in GW is as a very brief existence as a lower atmos particulate to COOL the surface. Which falls to ground quickly and can KILL snow and thereby inhibit ice from rebuilding from loss.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Feel better now?

I still can't help thinking there may be a bit more to it. Example:

Soot particles consist of aggregates of many spherical carbonaceous monomers (spherules) and are ubiquitous in the atmosphere. Soot particles are directly emitted into the atmosphere from a variety of combustion sources (Streets et al 2004). While fossil fuels (e.g., diesel, gasoline, oil, coal) combustion and open biomass burning at the ground level emit soot into the boundary layer, aviation emits it directly in the upper troposphere (Kärcher et al 1998, Wang 2011, Schumann et al 2013). Soot particles can also be transported from the boundary layer to the upper troposphere by deep convection (Storelvmo 2012). Soot particles affect climate directly by absorbing and scattering sunlight and indirectly by serving as a cloud condenstaion nuclei or ice nuclei (IN) (Bond et al 2013). Soot deposited on snow and ice sheets can decrease the surface albedo, thereby accelerating melting (Hansson and Ahlberg 1985, Ramanathan and Carmichael 2008). Furthermore, soot particles can increase absorption of solar radiation by decreasing cloud cover in the lower troposphere (Lohmann and Feichter 2005). Soot particles incorporated within ice crystals and droplets in clouds can also enhance light absorption and decrease cloud albedo (Hansen and Nazarenko 2004, Jacobson 2006, Ramanathan and Carmichael 2008). {-More-}

And otoh: Mapping ice cliffs on debris-covered glaciers using multispectral satellite images