If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Register)   Indian climate boffins: Himalayan glaciers are NOT MELTING. Well, boffins don't know much anyway, or else they wouldn't always be discovering stuff   (theregister.co.uk) divider line 50
    More: Followup, Indians, Indian climate, Pachauri, glaciers, Current sea level rise, warm period, Prodigy, melts  
•       •       •

1181 clicks; posted to Geek » on 13 May 2014 at 2:31 PM (11 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



50 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-05-13 10:53:30 AM
Boffins are so cute!
www.cornishseatours.com
 
2014-05-13 11:43:14 AM
Okay fine. Has this been independently verified?

It also doesn't refute glacial collapse around the rest of the world. Himalayan glaciers could be a special case due to the range's unusual height.
 
2014-05-13 11:50:51 AM

make me some tea: Okay fine. Has this been independently verified?

It also doesn't refute glacial collapse around the rest of the world. Himalayan glaciers could be a special case due to the range's unusual height.


Many boffins died to get us the information in TFA.
 
2014-05-13 11:52:04 AM
This is it.  This is why a large number of Americans doubt climate change.  The UN issues a report that turned out to be inaccurate or even faintly, possibly inaccurate (Himalayan ice melt).  Everyone then assume that all scientific findings must also be inaccurate and there's a grand conspiracy to by the UN and brainy college folks to trick the average American.  This is what I was talking about yesterday.  Every time I mention new findings to my Dad, he'll respond with a story like this.  And of course, because it's on the internet... it's true.
 
2014-05-13 12:18:40 PM
No, Himalayan glaciers are not vanishing. Did you make sure they are plugged in? Please to do the needful and revert?

I am being "Bob" from Houston and thanking you very much.
 
2014-05-13 12:36:54 PM

dittybopper: Many boffins died to get us the information in TFA.


i.imgur.com
 
2014-05-13 12:57:09 PM
i586.photobucket.com
 
2014-05-13 02:35:44 PM
An average retreat of 2.1 meters per year is not melting, apparently.
 
2014-05-13 02:36:13 PM

meat0918: An average retreat of 2.1 meters per year is not melting, apparently.


They're just pining for the fjords.
 
2014-05-13 02:40:32 PM

make me some tea: Okay fine. Has this been independently verified?


Or is this independent verification of the 2009 Indian report? Or not independent, merely verification? Or independent, but not verification? Or not independent, nor verification?
 
2014-05-13 02:41:27 PM

spcMike: meat0918: An average retreat of 2.1 meters per year is not melting, apparently.

They're just pining for the fjords.


1. Retreat.
2. Fjords.
3. Pines.
4. Parrots.
 
2014-05-13 02:42:57 PM
Climate Boffins would probably know that most glaciers are melting at their leading edge.

The question is, are they melting faster than new ice flows in to replace the leading edge?

/but apparently a bunch of guys who write for an IT journal didn't know that
 
2014-05-13 02:44:16 PM
We did an Alaskan cruise two summers ago to view the glaciers. They're retreating like [favorite nation to be butt of retreat jokes]. Those glaciers are at or near sea level. That there are any Himalayan glaciers retreating, considering the altitudes involved, is amazing. We've had .9C of warming. Water still freezes at 0C. It still is below 0C at high elevations. AGW hasn't done away with physics.
 
2014-05-13 02:46:39 PM

meat0918: An average retreat of 2.1 meters per year is not melting, apparently.


My guess is that 2.1 meters per year is such a small change that the total ice is considered "stable". With that much ice 2.1 meters may not be considered significant enough to qualify as a change. Kind of like if a forest lost one tree a year. Sure the forest is shrinking, but not in any meaningful way. But that's just a guess.
 
2014-05-13 02:48:16 PM
"Boffin" is my least favorite news media word. English news media love to annoy their public.
 
2014-05-13 02:49:14 PM

yakmans_dad: They're retreating like [favorite nation to be butt of retreat jokes].


Bhophuthatswana?
 
2014-05-13 02:49:54 PM
www.greenpeace.org
 
2014-05-13 02:50:20 PM

yakmans_dad: "Boffin" is my least favorite news media word. English news media love to annoy their public.


Always fobbin' boffin on us, no fib.
 
2014-05-13 02:52:55 PM
From TFA:
I. M. Bahuguna et al, publishing in Current Science, studied changes to 2,000 glaciers in various Himalayan regions between 2001 to 2011. They conclude that 1,700 were stable, showing the same surface area and no change of direction. 248 glaciers exhibited a retreat, and 18 an advance. The scientists estimate a net loss of glacier area of about 10,000 km2 - that's a 0.2 per cent decrease (+/- 2.5pc), and an average retreat of 2.1 metres annually.

WelldeadLink: make me some tea: Okay fine. Has this been independently verified?

Or is this independent verification of the 2009 Indian report? Or not independent, merely verification? Or independent, but not verification? Or not independent, nor verification?


From your link:

Today Ramesh denied any such risk existed: "There is no conclusive scientific evidence to link global warming with what is happening in the Himalayan glaciers." The minister added although some glaciers are receding they were doing so at a rate that was not "historically alarming".

So . . . reports from a geologist and a couple of physicists in India show that the Himalayan glaciers are melting.

Somehow, this refutes global warming.

Can someone help me out with the logic here?
 
2014-05-13 02:53:19 PM

WelldeadLink: make me some tea: Okay fine. Has this been independently verified?

Or is this independent verification of the 2009 Indian report? Or not independent, merely verification? Or independent, but not verification? Or not independent, nor verification?


Hmm.
 
2014-05-13 02:53:51 PM

yakmans_dad: We did an Alaskan cruise two summers ago to view the glaciers. They're retreating like [favorite nation to be butt of retreat jokes]. Those glaciers are at or near sea level. That there are any Himalayan glaciers retreating, considering the altitudes involved, is amazing. We've had .9C of warming. Water still freezes at 0C. It still is below 0C at high elevations. AGW hasn't done away with physics.


You can still get sublimation, which is solid water going straight into a gas, at below zero C. Radiation directly impacting ice can raise the energy level up high enough for molecules to break free without really raising the average temperature. That's usually not a very fast process though.
 
2014-05-13 03:02:45 PM
Headline:  Himalayan glaciers are NOT MELTING
Article: 248
Himalayan glaciers  are melting
 
2014-05-13 03:02:52 PM
www.iceagenow.com

FTA:

"It confirms earlier research published in Nature that the Himalayas are in line with the historical natural warming trend"

"Glacier extent reached its peak 22,000 years ago. Glacier retreat accelerated with the end of the last ice age, some 11,000 to 12,000 years ago. They're expected to advance again when the current interglacial period comes to an end."
 
2014-05-13 03:04:45 PM

To The Escape Zeppelin!: meat0918: An average retreat of 2.1 meters per year is not melting, apparently.

My guess is that 2.1 meters per year is such a small change that the total ice is considered "stable". With that much ice 2.1 meters may not be considered significant enough to qualify as a change. Kind of like if a forest lost one tree a year. Sure the forest is shrinking, but not in any meaningful way. But that's just a guess.


Looking at the actual report, if the overall mass were stable, you'd expect to see roughly the same number of retreating glaciers as advancing glaciers. That's not the case: 1752 were stable, 248 were retreating, and 18 advanced.

I'm guessing the ones that changes (retreating or advancing) were towards the edges, and lower down. Using your forest analogy, if the edge areas of the forest are retreating, but the center is staying constant, you don't conclude that the forest as a whole is stable.

Also, from the conclusion of the paper:

most of the glaciers were in a steady state compared to the results of other studies carried out for the period prior to 2001. This period of monitoring almost corresponds to hiatus in global warming in the last decade

So a short-term study concludes that (overall) the glaciers are shrinking. That's interesting, but I'm still trying to figure out how this refutes global warming.
 
2014-05-13 03:06:44 PM
Interesting. I skimmed the paper; the authors mention that studies of earlier periods of ice loss in the Himalayas show more loss than recent times (2001-2011). They mention this might be related to the "hiatus" (slowed warming) for this past decade.

So what caused the sudden increase in heat absorption by the ocean? Or was it something that ramped up and we didn't notice? Basically, what is the mechanism by which the oceans are absorbing that ridiculous amount of energy, and why did it ramp up recently?
 
2014-05-13 03:11:03 PM

ferretman: FTA:"It confirms earlier research published in Nature that the Himalayas are in line with the historical natural warming trend""Glacier extent reached its peak 22,000 years ago. Glacier retreat accelerated with the end of the last ice age, some 11,000 to 12,000 years ago. They're expected to advance again when the current interglacial period comes to an end."


The actual Bahuguna paper performed no comparisons with historical warming trends.

The link in TFA goes to an article discussing research focusing on 2003-2010 data. If you consider data from that period to be a "historical warming trend", then I suppose the 2001-2010 Bahuguna data is in line with it.

Neither reference is discussing "historical" in the same context as your graph of Greenland Ice Core temperatures.
 
2014-05-13 03:32:20 PM
One More Time

Headline: Indian climate boffins: Himalayan glaciers are NOT MELTING

Article: The scientists estimate a net loss of glacier area of about 10,000 km2 - that's a 0.2 per cent decrease (+/- 2.5pc), and an average retreat of 2.1 metres annually.
 
2014-05-13 03:36:14 PM
Does this mean solving the climate change issues the rest of the world is facing would be as simple as raising the rest of the planet to 24,000 feet?
 
2014-05-13 03:40:01 PM

hawcian: Interesting. I skimmed the paper; the authors mention that studies of earlier periods of ice loss in the Himalayas show more loss than recent times (2001-2011). They mention this might be related to the "hiatus" (slowed warming) for this past decade.

So what caused the sudden increase in heat absorption by the ocean? Or was it something that ramped up and we didn't notice? Basically, what is the mechanism by which the oceans are absorbing that ridiculous amount of energy, and why did it ramp up recently?


Published in the journal Science last year:  http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617.abstract

Also, google "global warming ocean", there's plenty of info and research that's been and being done on that aspect.

tl;dr - the ocean acts as a "battery" for heat, and is warming faster than the atmosphere, which tends to radiate it back out better. A warming ocean is not good, because it means increased evaporation and heat plumes which drive severe weather.
 
2014-05-13 03:50:01 PM

JRoo: One More Time

Headline: Indian climate boffins: Himalayan glaciers are NOT MELTING

Article: The scientists estimate a net loss of glacier area of about 10,000 km2 - that's a 0.2 per cent decrease (+/- 2.5pc), and an average retreat of 2.1 metres annually.



One of the big reasons to be very wary of claims made by The Register. I wish this was unusual for them.
 
2014-05-13 03:53:56 PM

yakmans_dad: "Boffin" is my least favorite news media word. English news media love to annoy their public.


The next farking Limey here that says "Boffin" is getting pistol whipped, I swear it!
 
2014-05-13 04:00:59 PM

vudukungfu: yakmans_dad: "Boffin" is my least favorite news media word. English news media love to annoy their public.

The next farking Limey here that says "Boffin" is getting pistol whipped, I swear it!


Hey WelldeadLink, what's the name of that car wash you like where they do the waxing by hand?
 
2014-05-13 04:12:00 PM

Vlad_the_Inaner: Climate Boffins would probably know that most glaciers are melting at their leading edge.

The question is, are they melting faster than new ice flows in to replace the leading edge?

/but apparently a bunch of guys who write for an IT journal didn't know that


The register is the IT version of the National Inquirer. Calling it a journal is giving them far too much credit.
 
2014-05-13 04:15:30 PM

vudukungfu: yakmans_dad: "Boffin" is my least favorite news media word. English news media love to annoy their public.

The next farking Limey here that says "Boffin" is getting pistol whipped, I swear it!


So you're going to boff them. If only there were a word which describes you when you do it.
 
2014-05-13 04:20:04 PM

ferretman: [www.iceagenow.com image 829x493]

FTA:

"It confirms earlier research published in Nature that the Himalayas are in line with the historical natural warming trend"

"Glacier extent reached its peak 22,000 years ago. Glacier retreat accelerated with the end of the last ice age, some 11,000 to 12,000 years ago. They're expected to advance again when the current interglacial period comes to an end."


Your bullshiat graph is bullshiat. You can read an explanation why in this post: Link. I will, however, give you the TL;DR version: The data that graph is based on uses 1950 as it's "Present" date, and the most recent data point is 95 BP (before present), AKA 1855, well before modern warming trends were established. There are several other reasons why's it is crap, but that one is pretty significant.
 
2014-05-13 09:06:22 PM
How many boffins died to bring us this report?
 
2014-05-13 10:03:03 PM

ferretman: [www.iceagenow.com image 829x493]


I Havent Killed Anybody Since 1984: ferretman: [www.iceagenow.com image 829x493]

FTA:

"It confirms earlier research published in Nature that the Himalayas are in line with the historical natural warming trend"

"Glacier extent reached its peak 22,000 years ago. Glacier retreat accelerated with the end of the last ice age, some 11,000 to 12,000 years ago. They're expected to advance again when the current interglacial period comes to an end."

Your bullshiat graph is bullshiat. You can read an explanation why in this post: Link. I will, however, give you the TL;DR version: The data that graph is based on uses 1950 as it's "Present" date, and the most recent data point is 95 BP (before present), AKA 1855, well before modern warming trends were established. There are several other reasons why's it is crap, but that one is pretty significant.


So hes a lying shiatstain.  Just like all the anti global warming people who post on here.
 
2014-05-13 10:40:26 PM
make me some tea [TotalFark]
2014-05-13 11:43:14 AM


Okay fine. Has this been independently verified?

It also doesn't refute glacial collapse around the rest of the world. Himalayan glaciers could be a special case due to the range's unusual height.

This was proved and admited to be correct YEARS ago, but you greens kept lying about it.
--8 February 2012
 
2014-05-13 10:43:17 PM

hawcian: Interesting. I skimmed the paper; the authors mention that studies of earlier periods of ice loss in the Himalayas show more loss than recent times (2001-2011). They mention this might be related to the "hiatus" (slowed warming) for this past decade.

So what caused the sudden increase in heat absorption by the ocean? Or was it something that ramped up and we didn't notice? Basically, what is the mechanism by which the oceans are absorbing that ridiculous amount of energy, and why did it ramp up recently?


Dramatic increase in the tropical pacific trade winds, see England et al., 2014.

Of course, that's just the proximate rather than the ultimate driver. What's the cause of that cause? I have my suspicions, but this is very much an open question. The two general categories of explanation are internal variability or forced behavior. Is this something the system occasionally does on its own, or a response to anthropogenic warming?
 
2014-05-13 10:54:01 PM

OnlyM3: make me some tea [TotalFark]
2014-05-13 11:43:14 AM


Okay fine. Has this been independently verified?

It also doesn't refute glacial collapse around the rest of the world. Himalayan glaciers could be a special case due to the range's unusual height.
This was proved and admited to be correct YEARS ago, but you greens kept lying about it.
--8 February 2012


Ah okay thanks for the link.

Like I said, this one aberration doesn't negate the mountains of data already gathered elsewhere.
 
2014-05-13 11:10:46 PM

dittybopper: make me some tea: Okay fine. Has this been independently verified?

It also doesn't refute glacial collapse around the rest of the world. Himalayan glaciers could be a special case due to the range's unusual height.

Many boffins died to get us the information in TFA.


Except you phrased it wrong.

You would have begotten more internets with proper syntax, "Many boffins died to bring us this information"
 
2014-05-13 11:49:34 PM

make me some tea: OnlyM3: make me some tea [TotalFark]
2014-05-13 11:43:14 AM


Okay fine. Has this been independently verified?

It also doesn't refute glacial collapse around the rest of the world. Himalayan glaciers could be a special case due to the range's unusual height.
This was proved and admited to be correct YEARS ago, but you greens kept lying about it.
--8 February 2012

Ah okay thanks for the link.

Like I said, this one aberration doesn't negate the mountains of data already gathered elsewhere.


Funny, that's what you say about all the aberrations, instead of calling them mountains.
 
2014-05-14 07:50:41 AM

LazarusLong42: How many boffins died to bring us this report?


Many.  Many boffins.
 
2014-05-14 07:51:26 AM

SithLord: dittybopper: make me some tea: Okay fine. Has this been independently verified?

It also doesn't refute glacial collapse around the rest of the world. Himalayan glaciers could be a special case due to the range's unusual height.

Many boffins died to get us the information in TFA.

Except you phrased it wrong.

You would have begotten more internets with proper syntax, "Many boffins died to bring us this information"


I was being ironic.

Or cupric.  I get the two mixed up sometimes.
 
2014-05-14 09:37:51 AM

make me some tea: OnlyM3: make me some tea [TotalFark]
2014-05-13 11:43:14 AM


Okay fine. Has this been independently verified?

It also doesn't refute glacial collapse around the rest of the world. Himalayan glaciers could be a special case due to the range's unusual height.
This was proved and admited to be correct YEARS ago, but you greens kept lying about it.
--8 February 2012

Ah okay thanks for the link.

Like I said, this one aberration doesn't negate the mountains of data already gathered elsewhere.


Globally, glacial mass balance is not just shrinking, it's doing so at an accelerated rate:

i.imgur.com
 
2014-05-14 11:28:44 AM
Those damn Koch brothers.  They're everywhere!
 
2014-05-14 05:25:29 PM
And Fark continues to provide a home to a farking horde of astroturfer jackasses, spinning, and dipping, and bringing up irrelevant BS...

Point of the article is that the IPCC is totally full of shiat about its claims, and they prove their point.  The 2007 report was filled with around 1,500 bits of "gray literature," that is, they were publishing crap from WWF pamphlets, and passing their report off as the "apparently most exhaustive review process in the world."  That's bollocks -- you don't get 1500 slip ups if you're even checking the sources.  Plain and simple the IPCC publishes any crap that sounds alarmist, and calls it "peer-reviewed."  They're a bureaucracy, and a bureaucracy of whores, no less.

Their claim was that the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by as early as 2035.  And, because SOME of those glaciers are retreating at an average of 2.1 meters a year, or glaciers elsewhere are retreating, that somehow verifies their utterly asinine claim?  Bollocks.  Even if the present rate of warming continues, the Himalayan glaciers will be there for thousands of years -- and beyond, because we are nearly done with this interglacial period, and before those glaciers can melt, the "ice age" will be adding to them each year.
 
2014-05-14 06:22:16 PM

GeneralJim: And Fark continues to provide a home to a farking horde of astroturfer jackasses, spinning, and dipping, and bringing up irrelevant BS...

Point of the article is that the IPCC is totally full of shiat about its claims, and they prove their point.  The 2007 report was filled with around 1,500 bits of "gray literature," that is, they were publishing crap from WWF pamphlets, and passing their report off as the "apparently most exhaustive review process in the world."  That's bollocks -- you don't get 1500 slip ups if you're even checking the sources.  Plain and simple the IPCC publishes any crap that sounds alarmist, and calls it "peer-reviewed."  They're a bureaucracy, and a bureaucracy of whores, no less.


Welcome back! Strong out of the gate with misconceptions, I see. Grey literature encompasses reports made by NGOs, government,a and academic sources - anything that isn't part of the usual peer-reviewed literature. This is partly because the peer-reviewed literature does not accommodate large reports (like the IPCC reports themselves, which would be considered grey literature). Part of being "exhaustive" is that not all information is included in the peer-reviewed literature. Information on national-level economic  policies, for instance. This suggests that grey literature would be more of a fit with reports that deal with impacts, mitigation, and adaptation, and this is the case - the physical science basis that is detailed in WGI reports does not rely on grey literature.

In addition, in no way has the IPCC made any claims that grey literature is somehow "peer-reviewed" in the sense of the traditional literature.


GeneralJim: Their claim was that the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by as early as 2035. And, because SOME of those glaciers are retreating at an average of 2.1 meters a year, or glaciers elsewhere are retreating, that somehow verifies their utterly asinine claim?


people.virginia.edu
Nobody has claimed such.
 
2014-05-14 10:14:02 PM

GeneralJim: And Fark continues to provide a home to a farking horde of astroturfer jackasses, spinning, and dipping, and bringing up irrelevant BS...

Point of the article is that the IPCC is totally full of shiat about its claims, and they prove their point.  The 2007 report was filled with around 1,500 bits of "gray literature," that is, they were publishing crap from WWF pamphlets, and passing their report off as the "apparently most exhaustive review process in the world."  That's bollocks -- you don't get 1500 slip ups if you're even checking the sources.  Plain and simple the IPCC publishes any crap that sounds alarmist, and calls it "peer-reviewed."  They're a bureaucracy, and a bureaucracy of whores, no less.


You didn't mention that they publish the Summary For Policymakers, which supplies TL;DR for politicians, then they revise their sciency details to match the Summary. Yup, they landscape their mountains of science to match what the bureaucrats agreed on.

But then, they're only required to study man-made climate change. They have to find the man-made type, or they have nothing to do.
 
2014-05-14 10:48:13 PM

WelldeadLink: GeneralJim: And Fark continues to provide a home to a farking horde of astroturfer jackasses, spinning, and dipping, and bringing up irrelevant BS...

Point of the article is that the IPCC is totally full of shiat about its claims, and they prove their point.  The 2007 report was filled with around 1,500 bits of "gray literature," that is, they were publishing crap from WWF pamphlets, and passing their report off as the "apparently most exhaustive review process in the world."  That's bollocks -- you don't get 1500 slip ups if you're even checking the sources.  Plain and simple the IPCC publishes any crap that sounds alarmist, and calls it "peer-reviewed."  They're a bureaucracy, and a bureaucracy of whores, no less.

You didn't mention that they publish the Summary For Policymakers, which supplies TL;DR for politicians, then they revise their sciency details to match the Summary. Yup, they landscape their mountains of science to match what the bureaucrats agreed on.


The changes done are minor, and they tend towards improving readability - plus, they're openly and transparently listed right together with each report. For example, here (pdf). Just as nefarious is the errata they also publish after this editing process.


WelldeadLink: But then, they're only required to study man-made climate change. They have to find the man-made type, or they have nothing to do.


False, as a very large chunk of the physical science report deals with natural variability. There's even a chapter that explicitly compares the two (pdf).

What they relate has to do with man-made climate change because that is what the scientific evidence is telling us.
 
Displayed 50 of 50 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report