Stole the following from Fuskie on the Climate Change board:
The highest glacier on the world’s tallest mountain is losing decades worth of ice every year because of human-induced climate change, a new study shows.
The findings serve as a warning that rapid glacier melt at some of the Earth’s highest points could bring worsening climate impacts, including more frequent avalanches and a drying-up of water sources that around 1.6 billion people in mountain ranges depend on for drinking, irrigation and hydropower.
Ice that took around 2,000 years to form on the South Col Glacier has melted in around 25 years, which means it has thinned out around 80 times faster than it formed.
The findings serve as a warning that rapid glacier melt at some of the Earth’s highest points could bring worsening climate impacts, including more frequent avalanches and a drying-up of water sources that around 1.6 billion people in mountain ranges depend on for drinking, irrigation and hydropower.
The paper indicates that the vast majority of loss is through sublimation rather than melting and Figure 4 shows that precipitation has been increasing over the last 40 years. Thus the impact on water flows would be small.
The paper indicates that the vast majority of loss is through sublimation rather than melting and Figure 4 shows that precipitation has been increasing over the last 40 years. Thus the impact on water flows would be small.
DB2
That, plus the 4.5 billion year geologic history of the planet shows it has gone thru at least four cycles of freezing over and thawing out, all without the benefit of an input by fuel burning homo sapiens.
Control of “global warming” has everything to do with control of people, and nothing to do with making an input on Mother Earth’s warmth.
The hoax is completely ignored by people with money. (Banks worldwide loaning BILLION$ of dollars on oceanfront properties that would soon be underwater if alarmists’ were to be believed is a useful metric.)
That, plus the 4.5 billion year geologic history of the planet shows it has gone thru at least four cycles of freezing over and thawing out, all without the benefit of an input by fuel burning homo sapiens.
But that’s the point – there were no humans back then. Who cares what the planet climate was like back then. So, two things you are missing here:
The rate of change is important, and right now that rate of change is drastically higher than it ever has been, and that is because of us and our activities.
Yes, climate changed in the past, but the planet did not need to support us back then. It does now. It is irrelevant if what is happening now happened in the past. What matters is if what happens now is going to be severely disruptive TO US or not.
If you seriously think that nearly every scientist on the planet is perpetuating a hoax to control people I’m not sure what to tell you…
The rate of change is important, and right now that rate of change is drastically higher than it ever has been, and that is because of us and our activities.
As one of the Gershwins wrote, it ain’t necessarily so.
For example, in this paper https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/57/3/227/268444
Botkin et al. look at ways to improve biodiversity forecasts for a warmer world. One of the issues they discuss is what they call the ‘Quaternary conundrum’.
"Current forecasting methods suggest that global warming will cause many extinctions, but the fossil record indicates that, in most regions, surprisingly few species went extinct during the Quaternary (from approximately 2.5 million years BCE to the present)…
“Until recently, it was thought that past temperature changes were no more rapid than 1 degree Celsius (°C) per millennium, but recent information…indicates that there have been many intervals of very rapid temperature change (e.g., 7°C to 12°C within approximately 50 years)…”
The paper indicates that the vast majority of loss is through sublimation rather than melting and Figure 4 shows that precipitation has been increasing over the last 40 years. Thus the impact on water flows would be small.
====================================
The water flows will end when the glacier is gone. The paper indicates that anthropogenic global warming is causing the melting of all Himalaya glaciers:
Climate predictions for the Himalaya all suggest continued warming and continued glacier mass loss. We find the transition from snow covered to exposed ice can change the state of the glacier from one of equilibrium to one of extremely rapid mass loss. At an estimated thinning rate approaching 2000?mm?a-1 even glaciers such as SCG that are above 8000?m may disappear by mid-century. Our study points to the critical balance afforded by snow-covered surfaces and the potential for loss throughout high mountain glacier systems as snow cover is depleted by changes in sublimation and surface melt driven by climate trends. Everest’s highest glacier has served as a sentinel for this delicate balance and has demonstrated that even the roof of the Earth is impacted by anthropogenic source warming.
The rate of change is important, and right now that rate of change is drastically higher than it ever has been, and that is because of us and our activities.
As one of the Gershwins wrote, it ain’t necessarily so.
The water flows will end when the glacier is gone.
That is true. The point I was making is that the glacier ‘melt’ discussed in the article is contributing very little to water flow – 96% is through sublimation (which doesn’t contribute to stream flow).
River flows in that part of Asia – the Indus, the Ganges and the Brahmaputra in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, and the Yellow River and the Yangtze in China – are dominated by seasonal rains. The glaciers are tiny, compared with the monsoon.
the 4.5 billion year geologic history of the planet shows it has gone thru at least four cycles of freezing over and thawing out, all without the benefit of an input by fuel burning homo sapiens.
The fact that this happens naturally is why it is possible and dangerous for humans to change the climate. Arson investigators don’t spend time looking for evidence that people light rocks to start fires. Rocks don’t burn naturally (except coal and …) and so humans can’t use them to start fires. The Earth does have the ability to change it’s climate and that can happen due to natural or human causes.
How do you know this climate history of the Earth? Why do you believe it’s true? The same scientists who say the climate has changed in the past are warning that humans are changing the climate now. Why believe some parts of what they say and not other parts. Either they are honest scientists and their warning should be taken seriously, or they are charlatans and there’s no reason to believe in ice ages.
I am talking about the rate of change for glacier melting, not average atmospheric warming.
That fine. I was responding to what bjurasz wrote:
"Who cares what the planet climate was like back then. So, two things you are missing here:
The rate of change is important, and right now that rate of change is drastically higher than it ever has been…"
Which is not the case.
Another research paper, this one by Willis et al. They were interested in predictions of wide-scale extinctions due to climate change. They focused on “intervals in time in the fossil record when atmospheric CO2 concentrations increased up to 1200 ppmv, temperatures in mid- to high-latitudes increased by greater than 4°C within 60 years, and sea levels rose by up to 3 m higher than present.”
The authors write they found “rapid community turnover, migrations, development of novel ecosystems and thresholds from one stable ecosystem state to another” but “very little evidence for broad-scale extinctions due to a warming world”. www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/14772000903495833
7°C to 12°C in 50 years? What have you been smoking? I know the legal weed is potent, but still… DB2
Great rebuttal.
Reminds of a great Doonesbury cartoon where the always whacked out bespectacled character said to another: “I don’t know what you’re smoking, but I want the recipe.”
Control of “global warming” has everything to do with control of people, and nothing to do with making an input on Mother Earth’s warmth.
The hoax is completely ignored by people with money. (Banks worldwide loaning BILLION$ of dollars on oceanfront properties that would soon be underwater if alarmists’ were to be believed is a useful metric.)
Global climate change has an impact. If we spend more time and effort trying to assess the best possible outcomes given the plausible scenarios instead of haphazardly trying to fight it, we might be more prepared.
We aren’t even sure that CO2 changes will impact the decadal rate of change of temperature averages. (before you you try to argue this point, realize that all the data we have is such a small sliver of epochal time, that it doesn’t even qualify for a second on the 12 hour clock face for run time)
Our models all show that we are warming. They provide some indication that there is correlation with CO2.
This is truly a perfect time to be an alarmist climate change pumper. If the climate continues to warm (truthfully, through data), the alarmist gains additional arrows in their quiver to say “Do more reducing!”.
If the climate doesn’t continue to warm, alarmist get to pomp about how right they were and how awesomely, awesome the solutions that came to bear SAVED us.
All moderated -and supported!- by your global news network and the many proud supporters (monetary influencers?).
Will we be ready for the change that is coming? ('cause it ain’t staying the same.)
We aren’t even sure that CO2 changes will impact the decadal rate of change of temperature averages. (before you you try to argue this point, realize that all the data we have is such a small sliver of epochal time, that it doesn’t even qualify for a second on the 12 hour clock face for run time)
Our models all show that we are warming. They provide some indication that there is correlation with CO2.
This is another climate change denier post. It has been proven by scientists that global warming is due CO2 emissions from human burning of fossil fuels, this post is just a political post. The world scientists, engineers and leaders are proceeding with eliminating fossil fuels and replacing them with clean fuels. Climate change deniers will be left on the trash heap of history.
The paper indicates that the vast majority of loss is through sublimation rather than melting and Figure 4 shows that precipitation has been increasing over the last 40 years.
What is the difference between melting and sublimation? Sublimation is not any better than melting for glaciers - the water content in the glaciers is lost in both phenomena.
Sublimation is the conversion between the solid and the gaseous phases of matter, with no intermediate liquid stage. For those of us interested in the water cycle, sublimation is most often used to describe the process of snow and ice changing into water vapor in the air without first melting into water.
What is the difference between melting and sublimation?
The difference is in the impact on water flow. If the process is mostly melting, then the water flow below the mountains is increased (adding to the dominant rainfall). If sublimation dominates, then there is little to no change to stream flow.