The glaciers aren’t disappearing after all

It turns out that all the Global Warming doomsayers were wrong. The glaciers aren’t disappearing after all:

HIMALAYAN glaciers are back on the frontline of climate change controversy, with new research showing the world’s greatest snowcapped peaks lost no ice at all over the past 10 years.

Claims the Himalayan ice peaks would disappear by 2035 instead of 2350 cast doubt over the credibility of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2009 report. Now even the 2350 estimate of disappearing ice is open to question.

Research published in the scientific journal Nature showed satellite measurements of the ice peaks from the Himalayas to Tian Shan on the border of China and Kyrgyzstan have come to an unexpected conclusion.

While lower-altitude glaciers were melting over the past eight years, enough snow was being added to the peaks to compensate.

The research published in Nature was designed to show the contribution of melting glaciers to rising sea levels.

It concluded that between 443 billion and 629 billion tonnes of meltwater from all the world’s glaciers were added to the oceans each year, enough to raise the sea level by about 1.5mm a year in addition to the 2mm a year caused by expansion of the warming ocean.

Scientists previously believed about 50 billion tonnes of meltwater were lost from the Himalayas each year and not replaced with snow, but the research shows that is not the case, with the amount of water melting into the sea being replaced with snow at higher altitudes.

 


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Pete George

    While lower-altitude glaciers were melting over the past eight years, enough snow was being added to the peaks to compensate.

    That could still be a sign of rising global temperatures – increased evaporation/preciptation results in more snow falling and still cold enough to stay at higher altitudes, but warmer temperatures at lower altitudes melting more there.

  • Jimmie

    Could also be a sign of rising scientific gobledegook. Hmmm science predicts grave consequences in the future and nature proves the scientists wrong yet again.

    To be honest some scientists and especially GW advocates aren’t any better than the middle age doctors relying on ancient Greek authorities on how the human body was made up. And if what they found at a post mortem was different to the ancient texts then the body was wrong and the ancients were right.

  • David

    Not to mention the latest NASA data totally ignored by MSM showing NO warming since 1998. At least we have the ETS.

  • Paranormal

    Interesting theory PG but the reality is glacier retreat and advancement has nothing to do with glacial melt – rather it is the cyclical levels of snowfall in the glacial ‘headwaters’.  So more snow at altitude will mean in the future advancing glaciers as the glacial snow moves down to lower altitudes.  That GW scientists ignore this is another example of their dishonesty.

  • i linked to this story this morning..

    ..but it is half of a two-fer…

    ..yes there is that anomaly on the peaks..

    ..but the sattelite imaging has also recorded major losses from lower down ice..glaciers..etc..

    ..so the peaks are only half of the story..eh..?

    ..and don’t disprove global warming..

    ..in fact the overall readings are ringing much louder alarm bells..

    [email protected]

    .

  • Mark

    Good to see Pete and Phillip not letting the facts getting in the way of a good story. The advantage of religion, you don’t need to let inconvenient facts get in the way.

    •  see..the thing is mark..one of the advantages of this whoar thang..is that i am not just plucking facts from the orifice nearest the back of my knees…

      ..i actually have the footnotes to provide empirical evidence of what i say..

      ..’tis quite empowering..

      ..i hafta say..

      ..you..?

      [email protected]

      • Anonymous

         The problem with empirical evidence Phil, is that if you only disclose some of it, you can draw some pretty inaccurate conclusions. That is a more polite way of saying witholding or supressing of information to support your own scientific biases.

        That is the scandal of this whole anthroprogenic climate change issue. That and the screes of cash to be made from doomsday predictions.

  • Spam

    Phil, the reduction lower down was groundwater depletion, not loss of glaciers.

    •  now you are just being silly there spam..

      ..once again..

      ..the sattelite-images are not lying..

      ..just the ‘facts’ man..just the ‘facts’…

      [email protected]

      • Vlad

        Phil, you get a regular slapping in here & why not.  Every Coliseum needs a Christian to devour so you serve a useful purpose.  BUT please please stop treble clicking spaces between your lines and try and make complete sentences. You take up too much white space. 

      • Spam

        Phil: If you don’t believe me, then believe NASA:
        http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/grace20120208mid.html


        Indian Subcontinent
        Average yearly change in mass, in
        centimeters of water, during 2003-2010, as measured by NASA’s Gravity
        Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites, for the Indian
        subcontinent. The dots represent glacier locations. There is significant
        mass loss in this region, but it is concentrated over the plains south
        of the glaciers, and is caused by groundwater depletion
        . Blue represents
        ice mass loss, while red represents ice mass gain

  • 6sn7gta

    hello  i googled this,  and there’s a really good chain of reviews of the original paper by various climatologists. 

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/feb/09/glaciers-ice-melting-climate-change

    it makes for interesting reading.  here’s leo hickmans review or his verdict on the various threads/conversations.

    The Nature study has inevitably attracted plenty of attention because
    it deals, in part, with the still-controversial subject of Himalayan
    glaciers. Climate sceptics were delighted in 2010 when the IPCC had to
    correct a silly mistake in one of its landmark reports in which it had
    used “grey literature” to mistakenly make the claim that the region’s
    glaciers would melt by 2035, rather than 2350, if current warming trends
    continued.
    The surprising finding, reported in this new study,
    that satellite evidence shows that there wasn’t any loss in ice mass
    between 2003 and 2010 in the wider Himalayan region has, again, been
    welcomed with much delight by climate sceptics. However, the headline
    finding distracts somewhat from the rest of the data presented in the
    paper. It shows clear evidence that other regions, most notably
    Greenland and Antarctica, recorded a significant loss in ice mass over
    this same period. But, because this was largely expected, it didn’t
    become the headline.
    There’s little comfort to be found, though,
    in the news that, in total, 536 gigatonnes (+/- 93Gt) of ice was “lost”
    globally between 2003 and 2010. What this study shows is that our
    understanding of how glaciers are affected by climate change can, as you
    would expect, be improved. For example, there are huge regional
    variations for reasons that scientists are still trying to fully
    understand. But to pin our hopes that climate change might be more
    benign than first feared on an unexpected finding in one region over a
    period of just eight years seems unwise when the wider global trend is
    clear, as the study clearly shows.

  • Apolonia

    It looks like the Intergovernmental panel on climate change will have to consult the entrails of some more chickens to see if their predictions need revising. Their current policy of “if you repeat it often enough it will happen” doesn’t seem to be working.

  • Jeremy Thomson

    The actual press release from NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

    http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2012-036#4 

    From the Australian “enough snow was being added to the peaks to compensate.”

    But from JPL “One unexpected study result from GRACE was that the estimated ice loss from high Asian mountain ranges like the Himalaya, the Pamir and the Tien Shan was only about 4 billion tons of ice annually. Some previous ground-based estimates of ice loss in these high Asian mountains have ranged up to 50 billion tons annually.”

    So the High Asian glaciers are still losing ice, the snow isn’t compensating COMPLETELY.

    A little perspective, JPL was saying 4.3 trillion tons of ice loss globally over 7 years, so 614 billion a year. That overstated 46 billion ice loss makes for a 7% percent overstatement.

    The glaciers are still disappearing, 7% slower  than previously thought.

    • Stanferguson22

      A re-estimate from fifty (50) billion to four (4) billion is enough to persuade me that the whole charade should be taken with a grain of salt.

      If all the world’s ice melt (except Greenland and Antarctica, which haven’t increased) is now estimated to cause sea levels to rise only four (4) centimeters per century, the whole problem has gone away. Last week, the dogmatic “consensus” was 10 centimeters/ century.

  • Anonymous

    Glacier retreat means bugger all anyway except to prove that it’s been warming since the little ice age. Check out the documented retreat of the following glaciers in Alaska:

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/glacierbaymap1.gif

    It needs to be remembered that proof of warming is not evidence of AGW. Real proof of AGW is a troposphere that warms faster than the Earth’s surface during times of warming, and in combination with a cooling stratosphere. That’s what’s needed to prove AGW & in over 40 yrs of observations it hasn’t happened. Rising seas, retreating glaciers, etc. prove nothing except that it’s been warming, but it’s been doing that since Queen Elizabeth I & J.S Bach were walking the Earth from approx. 1600. It’s a side show to distract from the fact that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for AGW.

    If the glaciers have stopped retreating though, that means the warming since the 1600’s is slowing or stopped which is another of many inconvenient truth for the bullshitting warmistas & the naive sheeple that believe this conjob tripe.

31%