More On The Himalayas: They Are NOT Contributing to Sea Level Rise.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Loving it. Absolutely loving it. Not only do they admit they were wrong and STUNNED as in the previous article, but now we come to find out that anything they have to study glaciers is in the early stages and they've been blowing smoke up our butt all these years. Effing hilarious.

It's the end of the world because SHEEP end up trying to make laws regarding ####### just because some alleged scientist says that they should do something, when in fact the so-called scientists are just guessing (because that's what they do 99.9% of the time. It's why it's called 'theory') about what's happening around the world.

--------------

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/9071908/Melting-glaciers-on-the-Himalayas-not-contributing-to-sea-level-rise.html

Melting glaciers on the Himalayas not contributing to sea level rise.

The Himalayas has lost no significant ice over the past decade, according to a new study, that found melting ice from glaciers is having a much smaller effect on sea levels than previously thought.

Previous studies relied on physical measurements of ice caps and glaciers on the ground.

However less than 120 out of more than 160,000 across the world have actually been measured because of the difficulty of accessing freezing and remote regions.

The new study, published in Nature, used satellites to measure the loss of ice from ice caps and glaciers for the first time from 2003 to 2010.

The results found that overall ice loss from ice caps and glaciers on land, excluding the huge ice caps on Greenland and Antarctica, is adding 0.4 mm per year to sea levels compared to previous projections that estimated 1mm per year.

Mountain glaciers in Asia in particular are having a much smaller effect than thought, with a “neglible mass loss” from the Himalayas over the last ten years.

The fact that the satelllite is measuring ice much higher up the mountain range rather than concentrating on more accessible glaciers in warmer areas lower down could account for the change in estimates.

It comes after the “Himalayagate” scandal that saw the United Nations science body the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) forced to admit it was a mistake to predict the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035.

Jonathan Bamber, of the Bristol Glaciology Centre at the University of Bristol, said melting glaciers are an iconic symbol of climate change.

He said the new study will help to understand the effect of climate change on the billions of people living in areas relying on melt ice and help to understand the long term effect on sea level rise.

“The contribution of glaciers and ice caps (excluding the Antarctica and Greenland peripheral GICs) to sea-level rise was less than half the value of the most recent, comprehensive estimate obtained from extrapolation of in situ measurements for 2001-05 (0.41 +/- 0.08 compared with 1.1mm yr). Second, losses for the High Mountain Asia region - comprising the Himalayas, Karakoram, Tianshan, Pamirs and Tibet - were insignificant.”

The expansion of water as the oceans warm and the melting of the major ice caps at the Poles are the main driver of sea level rise, which is predicted to rise by between 30cm and 1m by 2100.

Prof John Wahr, of the University of Colorado, pointed out that the new way of measuring glaciers using satellites known as Grace (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) is at an early stage and more work needs to be done.

The study shows 148 billion tonnes of ice, or about 39 cubic miles, was lost annually between 2003 and 2010.

This equates to some 1,000 cubic miles of ice disappearing between 2003 and 2010 – enough to cover the US in one-and-a-half feet of water.

"Our results and those of everyone else show we are losing a huge amount of water into the oceans every year," he said. "People should be just as worried about the melting of the world's ice as they were before."

[웃 910]

when in fact the so-called scientists are just guessing (because that's what they do 99.9% of the time. It's why it's called 'theory')

Theories are synonymous with facts in science, FYI...

"A theory, as the word is used in science, doesn’t mean an unsupported speculation or hypothesis (the popular use of the word). A theory is, instead, a big idea that encompasses other ideas and hypotheses and weaves them into a coherent fabric. It is a mature, interconnected body of statements, based on reasoning and evidence, that explains a wide variety of observations. It is, in one of the definitions offered by the Oxford English Dictionary, “a scheme or system of ideas and statements held as an explanation of account of a group of ideas or phenomena; . . .a statement of what are known to be the general laws of something known or observed.” Thus atomic theory, quantum theory, and plate tectonic theory are not mere speculations or opinions, but strongly supported ideas that explain a great variety of phenomena. There are few theories in biology, and among them evolution is surely the most important.So is evolution a fact or a theory? In light of these definitions, evolution is a scientific fact. That is, the descent of all species, with modification from common ancestors is a hypothesis that in the last 150 years or so has been supported by so much evidence, and has so successfully resisted all challenges, that it has become a fact. But this history of evolutionary change is explained by evolutionary theory, the body of statements (about mutations, selection, genetic drift, developmental constraints, and so forth) that together account for the various changes that organisms have undergone."

[Obama 2012 1,714]

There are very few facts in science. While we understand gravity on earth to an extent and while we understand it to an extent when we're in space, we don't have a true understanding of it in all environments. We can only assume based on what we see/know.

The unfortunate thing about the whole "Climate Change" debacle isn't just the theory, it's theories that haven't been real world tested. When they aren't real world tested from the getgo, then scientists are "STUNNED" of the real-world actual results. It's pathetic. It completely discredits each and every climate scientist that spends his/her days looking at computer models and not actually taking a look at what's going on. The sad part is that they admit to this and still feel they are right. It doesn't work that way. WYSIWYG. They seem to forget about that aspect. Instead every one of them is trying to find a way to be relevant right now and doesn't give a damn about the real world. Who will be the first climate scientist to figure it all out!!!! You're not going to figure out jack ####### until you take a look outside and realize "oh wait, those aren't really melting."

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Agreed except the people really behind this are not sheep. They are using this as an excuse for massive wealth redistribution. Buying carbon "credits" from poor countries does nothing to reduce green house gas emissions or prevent global warming. It simply allows a way to transfer money to countries that otherwise have nothing to offer. So what better for them to "sell" than NOTHING.

It is an excuse to control people's lives, create world communism and bring everyone down to the same low level.

Some "sheep" actually believe what the wolves are selling them, THOSE people are sheep, but they are not the ones behind the efforts.

The scientists are merely selling their services to the market. Until now there were more buyers for Global Warming scientific results so that is what resulted. Now there is a market for scientific information that refutes global warming so we will see more of that now

You get what you pay for.

[웃 910]

There are very few facts in science.

BREAKING NEWS: Scientists discover that Zebra stripes evolved to keep flies from biting them.

Here is how they came to this breakthrough conclusion:

The team placed the sticky model horses in a fly-infested field

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/16944753

Edited February 9, 2012 by ☠

[Dakine10 5,452]

Loving it. Absolutely loving it. Not only do they admit they were wrong and STUNNED as in the previous article, but now we come to find out that anything they have to study glaciers is in the early stages and they've been blowing smoke up our butt all these years. Effing hilarious.

It's the end of the world because SHEEP end up trying to make laws regarding ####### just because some alleged scientist says that they should do something, when in fact the so-called scientists are just guessing (because that's what they do 99.9% of the time. It's why it's called 'theory') about what's happening around the world.

--------------

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/9071908/Melting-glaciers-on-the-Himalayas-not-contributing-to-sea-level-rise.html

Melting glaciers on the Himalayas not contributing to sea level rise.

The Himalayas has lost no significant ice over the past decade, according to a new study, that found melting ice from glaciers is having a much smaller effect on sea levels than previously thought.

Previous studies relied on physical measurements of ice caps and glaciers on the ground.

However less than 120 out of more than 160,000 across the world have actually been measured because of the difficulty of accessing freezing and remote regions.

The new study, published in Nature, used satellites to measure the loss of ice from ice caps and glaciers for the first time from 2003 to 2010.

The results found that overall ice loss from ice caps and glaciers on land, excluding the huge ice caps on Greenland and Antarctica, is adding 0.4 mm per year to sea levels compared to previous projections that estimated 1mm per year.

Mountain glaciers in Asia in particular are having a much smaller effect than thought, with a “neglible mass loss” from the Himalayas over the last ten years.

The fact that the satelllite is measuring ice much higher up the mountain range rather than concentrating on more accessible glaciers in warmer areas lower down could account for the change in estimates.

It comes after the “Himalayagate” scandal that saw the United Nations science body the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) forced to admit it was a mistake to predict the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035.

Jonathan Bamber, of the Bristol Glaciology Centre at the University of Bristol, said melting glaciers are an iconic symbol of climate change.

He said the new study will help to understand the effect of climate change on the billions of people living in areas relying on melt ice and help to understand the long term effect on sea level rise.

“The contribution of glaciers and ice caps (excluding the Antarctica and Greenland peripheral GICs) to sea-level rise was less than half the value of the most recent, comprehensive estimate obtained from extrapolation of in situ measurements for 2001-05 (0.41 +/- 0.08 compared with 1.1mm yr). Second, losses for the High Mountain Asia region - comprising the Himalayas, Karakoram, Tianshan, Pamirs and Tibet - were insignificant.”

The expansion of water as the oceans warm and the melting of the major ice caps at the Poles are the main driver of sea level rise, which is predicted to rise by between 30cm and 1m by 2100.

Prof John Wahr, of the University of Colorado, pointed out that the new way of measuring glaciers using satellites known as Grace (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) is at an early stage and more work needs to be done.

The study shows 148 billion tonnes of ice, or about 39 cubic miles, was lost annually between 2003 and 2010.

This equates to some 1,000 cubic miles of ice disappearing between 2003 and 2010 – enough to cover the US in one-and-a-half feet of water.

"Our results and those of everyone else show we are losing a huge amount of water into the oceans every year," he said. "People should be just as worried about the melting of the world's ice as they were before."

So the article concludes that there has been no glacier loss in the Himilayas but the major source of rising sea levels (polar melting) continues as predicted, and 39 cubic miles of ice is lost annually and "People should be just as worried about the melting of the world's ice as they were before."

So what is it you're really gloating about? Details? Well I guess if that's what you have, you gotta run with it. Kind of lame though, after all the ####### you gave Steven.

[luckytxn 2,265]

So the article concludes that there has been no glacier loss in the Himilayas but the major source of rising sea levels (polar melting) continues as predicted, and 39 cubic miles of ice is lost annually and "People should be just as worried about the melting of the world's ice as they were before."

So what is it you're really gloating about? Details? Well I guess if that's what you have, you gotta run with it. Kind of lame though, after all the ####### you gave Steven.

Just because the Koolaid tastes good doesn't mean one needs to drink it. The melting polar ide was debunked many years ago when they did the actual measurements it was found to be INCREASINg.

Mike Griffith <br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: medium; ">Posted on Sat Jul 04 2009 12:27:20 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) by Signalman

Core measurements and satellite data show that the polar ice caps (arctic and antarctic) are expanding, not shrinking. The Australian recently published an article on the fact that the antarctic ice cap is growing:

ICE is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap. . . .

Ice core drilling in the fast ice off Australia’s Davis Station in East Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative Research Centre shows that last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years. The average thickness of the ice at Davis since the 1950s is 1.67m.

A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded. ("Antarctic Ice is Growing, Not Melting Away," http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574...57-401,00.html)

Dr. Ian Allison of the Australian Antarctic Division Glaciology Program rejects alarmist claims about ice-cap melting::

Dr Allison said there was not any evidence of significant change in the mass of ice shelves in east Antarctica nor any indication that its ice cap was melting. "The only significant calvings in Antarctica have been in the west," he said. And he cautioned that calvings of the magnitude seen recently in west Antarctica might not be unusual.

"Ice shelves in general have episodic carvings and there can be large icebergs breaking off - I'm talking 100km or 200km long - every 10 or 20 or 50 years." . ("Antarctic Ice is Growing, Not Melting Away," http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574...57-401,00.html)

The North Pole ice cap (arctic) is not melting away either. In fact, the arctic ice cap grew by 9% from 2007 to 2008:

"We have news from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). They say: The melt is over. And we’ve added 9.4% ice coverage from this time last year. Though it appears NSIDC is attempting to downplay this in their web page announcement today, one can safely say that despite irrational predictions seen earlier this year, we didn’t reach an “ice free north pole” nor a new record low for sea ice extent." (Arctic Sea Ice Melt Season Officially Over; Ice Up Over 9% from Last Year http://www.m4gw.com:2005/m4gw/2008/0...s_growing.html)

[Obama 2012 1,714]

So the article concludes that there has been no glacier loss in the Himilayas but the major source of rising sea levels (polar melting) continues as predicted, and 39 cubic miles of ice is lost annually and "People should be just as worried about the melting of the world's ice as they were before."

So what is it you're really gloating about? Details? Well I guess if that's what you have, you gotta run with it. Kind of lame though, after all the ####### you gave Steven.

and if you'd read the whole article you'd also note that they don't have a proper way to measure glaciers, etc. to actually know what we're gaining/losing.

In other words, they've been making it all up as they go!

[Dakine10 5,452]

Just because the Koolaid tastes good doesn't mean one needs to drink it. The melting polar ide was debunked many years ago when they did the actual measurements it was found to be INCREASINg.

Mike Griffith <br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: medium; ">Posted on Sat Jul 04 2009 12:27:20 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) by Signalman

Core measurements and satellite data show that the polar ice caps (arctic and antarctic) are expanding, not shrinking. The Australian recently published an article on the fact that the antarctic ice cap is growing:

ICE is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap. . . .

Ice core drilling in the fast ice off Australia’s Davis Station in East Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative Research Centre shows that last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years. The average thickness of the ice at Davis since the 1950s is 1.67m.

A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded. ("Antarctic Ice is Growing, Not Melting Away," http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574...57-401,00.html)

Dr. Ian Allison of the Australian Antarctic Division Glaciology Program rejects alarmist claims about ice-cap melting::

Dr Allison said there was not any evidence of significant change in the mass of ice shelves in east Antarctica nor any indication that its ice cap was melting. "The only significant calvings in Antarctica have been in the west," he said. And he cautioned that calvings of the magnitude seen recently in west Antarctica might not be unusual.

"Ice shelves in general have episodic carvings and there can be large icebergs breaking off - I'm talking 100km or 200km long - every 10 or 20 or 50 years." . ("Antarctic Ice is Growing, Not Melting Away," http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574...57-401,00.html)

The North Pole ice cap (arctic) is not melting away either. In fact, the arctic ice cap grew by 9% from 2007 to 2008:

"We have news from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). They say: The melt is over. And we’ve added 9.4% ice coverage from this time last year. Though it appears NSIDC is attempting to downplay this in their web page announcement today, one can safely say that despite irrational predictions seen earlier this year, we didn’t reach an “ice free north pole” nor a new record low for sea ice extent." (Arctic Sea Ice Melt Season Officially Over; Ice Up Over 9% from Last Year http://www.m4gw.com:2005/m4gw/2008/0...s_growing.html)

And the guys who did that study think the Himalayan glaciers are indeed shrinking. Quite a paradox we have now. What to do, what to do?

http://www.aussmc.org/2010/01/nz-smc-rapid-roundup-glaciologist-responds-to-doubts-over-himalayan-melt/

[luckytxn 2,265]

And the guys who did that study think the Himalayan glaciers are indeed shrinking. Quite a paradox we have now. What to do, what to do?

http://www.aussmc.or...himalayan-melt/

Can try to do actual science instead of making ####### up

[Dakine10 5,452]

and if you'd read the whole article you'd also note that they don't have a proper way to measure glaciers, etc. to actually know what we're gaining/losing.

In other words, they've been making it all up as they go!

Ah, so you are saying they are just making up the 39 cubic miles of ice melt annually, huh. Those sneaky bastards. Of course, somebody would have noticed all that missing ice.

I mean guys like Ian Allison have been studying glaciers for 40 years and they have the gall to think they can slip something like this past you. Well I can see why you have reason to gloat about it.

[Dakine10 5,452]

Can try to do actual science instead of making ####### up

So which did they make up? The melting glacier or the expanding one.

[luckytxn 2,265]

So which did they make up? The melting glacier or the expanding one.

Well when they did actual measurements it was found to be expanding. What does that tell you besides you being wrong.....again.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

So which did they make up? The melting glacier or the expanding one.

They made up the part about the himalayas losing ice and admitted they don't have proper instruments to study glaciers. I think it's pretty safe to assume they are making a lot up!

[Dakine10 5,452]

Well when they did actual measurements it was found to be expanding.

I see. So they measured and found that the Eastern Antarctic ice shelf has grown and thus concluded that all the polar ice caps are not shrinking. I thought that was the type of science you didn't like. Seems you like the occasional kool aid yourself then?

What does that tell you besides you being wrong.....again.

Actually I have only asked you questions. I'm not sure how questions can be wrong, but I am sceptical of people like you who try to discourage those questions. All I can glean from your insults is that you don't really have any confidence in your answers. Maybe it's time to post another study?