No link between melting glaciers and global warming

rpm

Admin
Staff member
Joined
Jul 22, 2003
Messages
66,806
Reaction score
5,057
Location
Johannesburg
India's environment minister said there was no scientific proof
to support the idea that the melting of Himalayan glaciers was
being caused by global warming, reports said Tuesday.

"There is no conclusive scientific evidence to link global
warming and Himalayan glaciers," business daily Live Mint quoted
Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh as saying.

Ramesh released research on Himalayan glaciers in New Delhi on
Monday that disputes the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC), regarded as the world's top authority on
climate change.

The IPCC, a United Nations body, has warned the glaciers are
receding faster than in any other part of the world and could
"disappear altogether by 2035 if not sooner".

"The health of the Himalayan glaciers is poor, but according to
the paper the doomsday prediction of the IPCC and Al Gore is also
not correct," Ramesh said, referring to former US vice president
and climate campaigner Al Gore.

He admitted some glaciers were receding but the rate was not
"historically alarming" as projected by the IPCC, the Hindustan
Times daily reported.

"Nothing abnormal is happening to Indian glaciers," said Vijay
Kumar Raina, the geologist who authored the research called
"Himalayan Glaciers, A state-of-art review of glacial studies,
glacial retreat and climate change."

"They're retreating because of negative mass balance. There's no
evidence of climate change," he said, according to the Hindustan
Times newspaper.

The IPCC has warned that the rivers of the Gangetic Basin, which
feed hundreds of millions in northern India, could run dry once
glaciers disappear.

But Ramesh denied any such risk existed and backed the findings
of the research that looked at 100 years of data gathered by the
Geological Survey of India from 25 glaciers.
 
Ok so what else besides the warming up of the earth could be melting glaciers?

"Negative Mass Balance" - does that not sound like one side of the glacier is MELTING?
 
Not that I agree with the report but just as a matter of information you should know that the amount of snow / precipitation is a contributing factor to the rate as which things melt. Its a common mistake to think of a glacier as a block of ice when in reality it is always growing and or shrinking, melting and refreezing. Having new material added and taken away.
Just thought I would expand the thought process a little as this has been proven a large contributor to the melting on other large bodies of ice, snow, and mountain caps.
 
<<Cough + Bull****>>

Ice melts when it gets hot. Am I missing something?

Some people just want to burn more fossil fuels and enrich themselves!
 
“Kilimanjaro Glaciers: Recent Areal Extent From Satellite Data and New Interpretation of Observed 20th Century Retreat Rates” by Cullen, Molg, Kaser, Hussein, Steffen, and Hardy (Tropical Glaciology Group, Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Innsbruck, Austria; Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, and Climate System Research Center, Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts) (Geophysical Research Letters, 2006) states: “All ice bodies on Kilimanjaro have retreated drastically between 1912–2003. Despite air temperatures always being below freezing, areal retreat of plateau glaciers is governed mostly by solar radiation induced melt on vertical walls that characterize their north and south margins [Mölg et al., 2003].

Notice the bold above, and yes you are missing something. @ FrancTheTank
 
Ok so what else besides the warming up of the earth could be melting glaciers?

"Negative Mass Balance" - does that not sound like one side of the glacier is MELTING?

One possibility could be pollution (dark coloured particles) settling on the ice. This absorbs the heat instead of radiating it, causing ice to melt.
 
As far as I'm aware the Antarctic is getting larger. Could have dreamt I heard that though.

The next thing we should be aware of is that apparently 98% of the planet's heat comes from the sun. Are we saying that the 2% basically generated by us mostly is causing all of this and it has nothing to do with anything related to the sun?

Whatever your opinion just don't fall head over heels into the media.

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-...nge-induced-disaster-predictions-falling-flat
 
Another strange perspective... so ... India is loosing its ice.. but its got nothing to do with global warming? Please.

The Himalayas are losing its ice.... Not global warming?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0310_060310_glaciers.html

The Alps are losing is glaciers... Not Global warming?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4874224.stm

The South American Patagonia Icefields are melting... still not global warming?
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2003/oct/HQ_03336_So_Amer_glaciers.html

The Arctic is losing its ice.. But also nothing to do with global warming?
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/arctic_thinice.html

Kilimanjaro is losing its snow.. has that got nothing to do with global warming?
http://www.americanscientist.org/science/content1/8084

Antarctica is losing its ice wild_cat:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm

The argument that Antarctica is losing its ice:
The amount of ice surrounding Antarctica is now at the highest level ever measured for this time of the year, since satellites first began to monitor it almost 30 years ago. It’s simply too cold for rain in Antarctica, and it’ll stay that way for a very long time. The bottom line is that there is more ice than ever surrounding Antarctica (source: Patrick Michaels).

The real story:

While the interior of East Antarctica is gaining land ice, overall Antarctica is losing land ice at an accelerating rate. Antarctic sea ice is growing despite a strongly warming Southern Ocean.

More at the above link supplied.

The ice is going people. I guess it must not be because we are getting warmer.. I mean please.. thats a myth... therefore we must be losing the ice to snow gremlins... from Utopia.
 
Last edited:
As far as I'm aware the Antarctic is getting larger. Could have dreamt I heard that though.

The next thing we should be aware of is that apparently 98% of the planet's heat comes from the sun. Are we saying that the 2% basically generated by us mostly is causing all of this and it has nothing to do with anything related to the sun?

Whatever your opinion just don't fall head over heels into the media.

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-...nge-induced-disaster-predictions-falling-flat

You are correct, sir, Antarctica has had a negative ice melt in the year or so.
 
Looks the " Great Evil Warmer " America - is not so warm after all:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=national&year=2009&month=10&submitted=Get+Report
From the report:
For the nation as a whole, it was the third coolest October on record. The month was marked by an active weather pattern that reinforced unseasonably cold air behind a series of cold fronts. Temperatures were below normal in eight of the nation's nine climate regions, and of the nine, five were much below normal. Only the Southeast climate region had near normal temperatures for October.

That MUST be because of global warming too right.
 
India's environment minister said there was no scientific proof to support the idea that the melting of Himalayan glaciers was
being caused by global warming...

I am puzzled about the use of the term ‘Himalaya’. The Himalaya is a mountain range (Mount. Everest is part of the Himalaya range). It is singular IMO, although I have seen it used both ways. It is like calling the Drakensberg mountain range the Drakensbergs. Doesn’t scan.

This is not an attack. There doesn’t seem to be consensus anyway. I put forward my **singular** suggestion as the correct way. Unless Himalayas (plural) means something in the local language (it’s not used consistently).
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X