Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown

124»

Comments

  • #152
    Sandvich
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,251 ✭✭✭Sandvich


    I read the report, and I don't see any glaring flaws with it.

    However it doesn't say that "These glaciers are not melting abnormally; therefore there is no global warming". It says that the behaviour of glaciers is too chaotic and contains too many factors to be used reliably in some cases, such as this one. It even makes reference to other glaciers having an observed abnormal change, and states that the Indian Himalayan glaciers are not like this; implying the issue here is local.

    This whole thing is just depressing, because it's the skeptics argument down to a T, let's pick out the bits that look like they agree with us and ignore the research as a whole.
    Glaciers, in the Himalayas, although shrinking in
    volume and constantly showing a retreating front,
    have not in any way exhibited, especially in recent
    years, an abnormal annual retreat, of the order that
    some glaciers in Alaska and Greenland are reported
    to be showing. One has to realise that the snouts
    of the glaciers in Alaska and Greenland are close
    to the sea level where as that of the glaciers in the
    Himalayas, on an average, are around 4,000m.a.s.l.
    In fact, if we go by ‘the topographic theory’ that
    maintains that because the temperature decreases
    with the altitude, mountain uplift causes glaciation,
    Himalayas should always retain glaciers in one form
    or the other.


  • #153
    gullon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29 ✭gullon


    Sandvich wrote: »
    I read the report, and I don't see any glaring flaws with it.

    However it doesn't say that "These glaciers are not melting abnormally; therefore there is no global warming".

    But they did state:
    It is premature to make a statement that glaciers in the Himalayas are retreating abnormally because of the global warming.


  • #154
    gullon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29 ✭gullon


    Sandvich wrote: »
    I read the report, and I don't see any glaring flaws with it.

    However it doesn't say that "These glaciers are not melting abnormally; therefore there is no global warming".

    Maybe the glaciers are melting abnormally due to brown cloud pollution and not global warming!

    http://www-cirrus.ucsd.edu/personnel/vram/publications/Ram_etal_Nature2007.pdf


  • #155
    Sandvich
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,251 ✭✭✭Sandvich


    gullon wrote: »
    Maybe the glaciers are melting abnormally due to brown cloud pollution and not global warming!

    http://www-cirrus.ucsd.edu/personnel/vram/publications/Ram_etal_Nature2007.pdf

    First sentence of that report.
    Atmospheric brown clouds are mostly the result of biomass burning
    and fossil fuel consumption1.

    It's times like this I wish this forum had a facepalm emote. :facepalm:


  • #156
    gullon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29 ✭gullon


    Sandvich wrote: »
    First sentence of that report.



    It's times like this I wish this forum had a facepalm emote. :facepalm:

    Did you read beyond the first sentence?

    How much of the abnormal Himalayan glacier retreat can be attributed to carbon dioxide induced global warming?


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    Sandvich
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,251 ✭✭✭Sandvich


    Why are you continuing to fixate on the same issue as if it disproves climate change?

    I'm not a glacier researcher or a climatologist, so I can't tell you. I do know bits and bobs of the subject at hand but given the glacier incident is "recent" I haven't had time to read up on it.


  • #158
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    gullon wrote: »
    I have serious issue with the IPCC when they dismiss peer reviewed science on Hmilayan glaciers as “voodoo science” and intend to scare the life out off me with dramatic and attention grabbing headlines from “grey literature” in WG II from NGO’s, which was incorrect. (and that was after 6000 scientists reviewed the IPCC report!)

    You need to be careful here. Many of the claims levelled against the IPCC aren't really true. The IPCC didn't dismiss peer review. Pachauri dismissed a paper by Indian Geological Survey because it lacked citations and wasn't peer reviewed. The intention to scare the life out of you? Really, have you read the review comments? It seems to me like too much trust was put in the WWF. A lazy citation error. Nothing more, really.


  • #159
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    gullon wrote: »
    Did you read beyond the first sentence?

    How much of the abnormal Himalayan glacier retreat can be attributed to carbon dioxide induced global warming?

    Glacial retreat typically depends on precipitation factors over a region. As precipitation is hard to model is it really unclear as to how many glaciers melting can be attributed to warming in the certain areas of himalayas. Glaciers growing in some areas can be attributed to warming too, sometimes it can't. Like Sandvich I don't really much about them to be honest. However if you are going to insist on this iota I'd ask you what your views on what exactly effects the glaciers are, that way we can start from some level or footing. :)


  • #160
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    gullon wrote: »
    Did you read beyond the first sentence?

    How much of the abnormal Himalayan glacier retreat can be attributed to carbon dioxide induced global warming?

    ??????????????????????????????????
    Anthropogenic isn't just C02.:confused:


  • #161
    gullon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29 ✭gullon


    Malty_T wrote: »
    ??????????????????????????????????
    Anthropogenic isn't just C02.:confused:

    To the average man in the street anthropogenic = carbon dioxide = global warming. The public is told that our carbon dioxide emissions are responsible for the melting of worldwide glaciers.

    Yes, anthropogenic isn't just about carbon dioxide, but we the public are led to believe it is.


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    gullon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29 ✭gullon


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Glacial retreat typically depends on precipitation factors over a region. As precipitation is hard to model is it really unclear as to how many glaciers melting can be attributed to warming in the certain areas of himalayas. Glaciers growing in some areas can be attributed to warming too, sometimes it can't. Like Sandvich I don't really much about them to be honest. However if you are going to insist on this iota I'd ask you what your views on what exactly effects the glaciers are, that way we can start from some level or footing. :)

    I was led to believe in my old age that himalayan glacier retreat was due to global warming ( I should stop reading the Guardian). Nobody reported that some are growing some are retreating and some not changing at all over the years.

    The same is reported for other glacial systems, but I am constantly being told "The world glaciers are retreating beacuse of global warming"

    I have digressed from the original thread which is about the IPCC and Dr Pachuri calling peer reviewed science "voodoo" science".

    If he really believes it is voodoo science he should resign.


  • #163
    gullon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29 ✭gullon


    Malty_T wrote: »
    You need to be careful here. Many of the claims levelled against the IPCC aren't really true. The IPCC didn't dismiss peer review. Pachauri dismissed a paper by Indian Geological Survey because it lacked citations and wasn't peer reviewed. The intention to scare the life out of you? Really, have you read the review comments? It seems to me like too much trust was put in the WWF. A lazy citation error. Nothing more, really.

    The report to the indian government did have citations. Are you referring to the report itself as not being peer reviewed.

    In a previous comment I referred to Dr Pachauri if he was acting in a private capcacity or as chairman of the IPCC when he made the comments. Either way he should resign


  • #164
    gullon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29 ✭gullon


    Sandvich wrote: »
    Why are you continuing to fixate on the same issue as if it disproves climate change?

    I'm not a glacier researcher or a climatologist, so I can't tell you. I do know bits and bobs of the subject at hand but given the glacier incident is "recent" I haven't had time to read up on it.

    I have a fixation here because you stated "what about the retreating glaciers" as if that proves global warming!

    I responded with the question "what about the expanding glaciers and what about the ones which are not changing at all"

    I am still awaiting an answer!


  • #165
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    gullon wrote: »
    The report to the indian government did have citations.
    It wasn’t properly referenced though. For example, I’ve just glanced through the introduction, which contains several ‘factual’ statements, yet none of them are referenced. Listing a few sources at the end of the document is not much good if the sources for specific claims cannot be clearly identified.
    gullon wrote: »
    Are you referring to the report itself as not being peer reviewed.
    Correct. But that’s not necessarily all that important in and of itself, since WGII frequently relies upon so-called ‘grey’ literature.


  • #166
    Sandvich
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,251 ✭✭✭Sandvich


    gullon wrote: »
    I have a fixation here because you stated "what about the retreating glaciers" as if that proves global warming!

    No, there are several things that "prove" global warming. It's just particularly irritating that you overfocus on one area of glaciers.


  • #167
    Cunsiderthis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 471 ✭✭Cunsiderthis


    Sandvich wrote: »
    No, there are several things that "prove" global warming. It's just particularly irritating that you overfocus on one area of glaciers.

    The only think which "proves" global warming are thermometers. I agree that to overfocus on any other area seems pointless.


  • #168
    gullon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29 ✭gullon


    Sandvich wrote: »
    No, there are several things that "prove" global warming. It's just particularly irritating that you overfocus on one area of glaciers.


    Ok in order to stop being irritating to you for commenting on Himalayan glaciers in a Himalayan glacier thread. I will again ask you why is the net mass balance change for European glaciers since the 90's close to zero?


  • #169
    gullon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29 ✭gullon


    Sandvich wrote: »
    And what about all the other Glaciers that are shrinking just as we expected them?

    I guess those don't count.

    You're right glaciers have retreated globally, but can you explian why the retreat commenced in the early 1800's?


  • #170
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    gullon wrote: »
    You're right glaciers have retreated globally, but can you explian why the retreat commenced in the early 1800's?

    The Earth began to emerge from the period known as the little Ice Age. I'm not sure what relevance this has though to the recent trend of warming that's attributed to AGW. Glaciers respond to changes in climate, they retreat and they grow; climate in turn is influenced by a plethora of other factors. What matters is how rapidly the glaciers have been retreating. And. yes, like everything such as science's spelling there are exceptions to a trend or given rule.


  • #171
    Cunsiderthis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 471 ✭✭Cunsiderthis


    Malty_T wrote: »
    The Earth began to emerge from the period known as the little Ice Age. I'm not sure what relevance this has though to the recent trend of warming that's attributed to AGW. Glaciers respond to changes in climate, they retreat and they grow; climate in turn is influenced by a plethora of other factors. What matters is how rapidly the glaciers have been retreating. And. yes, like everything such as science's spelling there are exceptions to a trend or given rule.

    I'd read somewhere that credulouists refuse to acknowledge the existence of either the little ice age or the medevil warm period as both suggest that extremes of temperature happened before man came along burning fossil fuels and before the term "carbon footprint" was dreamed up.


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Cunsiderthis wrote: »
    I'd read somewhere that credulouists refuse to acknowledge the existence of either the little ice age or the medevil warm period as both suggest that extremes of temperature happened before man came along burning fossil fuels and before the term "carbon footprint" was dreamed up.
    Where did you read that?


  • #173
    Cunsiderthis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 471 ✭✭Cunsiderthis


    taconnol wrote: »
    Where did you read that?

    I'm not at all sure, but certainly I've read it. Are you saying that the LIA and MWP is accepted by most credulouists?


  • #174
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Cunsiderthis wrote: »
    I'm not at all sure, but certainly I've read it. Are you saying that the LIA and MWP is accepted by most credulouists?
    I can't speak on behalf of the entire scientific community but I daresay there are very, very few that don't acknowledge the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming Period.

    From RealClimate.org, a well-respected blog by a group of climate scientists:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/11/little-ice-age-lia/

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/11/medieval-warm-period-mwp/

    It would be nice if you could give us a source for your claim.


  • #175
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Cunsiderthis wrote: »
    I'd read somewhere that credulouists refuse to acknowledge the existence of either the little ice age or the medevil warm period as both suggest that extremes of temperature happened before man came along burning fossil fuels and before the term "carbon footprint" was dreamed up.

    Rather depressingly, I think you are right here. (Though I can't recall where either.) Then again there's all sorts of people out there, all our arguments with folks over any given topic would be easy if we just focused on the extremes and in people who believed the bizarre. No publishing scientist in the area of Climate Science denies these periods happened. That really is all that matters.


  • #176
    Sandvich
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,251 ✭✭✭Sandvich


    Cunsiderthis wrote: »
    I'd read somewhere that credulouists refuse to acknowledge the existence of either the little ice age or the medevil warm period as both suggest that extremes of temperature happened before man came along burning fossil fuels and before the term "carbon footprint" was dreamed up.

    You read this on some nutty right wing blog or in the Daily Mail. It's pretty far from the truth. Unlike some of the skeptics, the "warmists" generally like to take these these head on. There's the idea thrown out there by the media that a lot of climatologists like to dodge all these points when in reality they deal with a lot of them fairly head on.

    Medieval warm period was localised warming, for example.


  • #177
    Cunsiderthis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 471 ✭✭Cunsiderthis


    Sandvich wrote: »
    You read this on some nutty right wing blog or in the Daily Mail. It's pretty far from the truth.

    As I've never read the daily mail, I think it unlikely to have read it there. As for your "nutty right wing blog" I presume you mean right wing as a term of abuse.


  • #178
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Handbags away please folks.

    Sandvich,

    Stick to discussing the content of posts rather than casting aspersions on posters. You’ve been warned about this once already – next offence results in a ban.


  • #179
    gizmo555
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    Robert Watson, a former chairman of the IPCC, says what has been obvious to many of us for a some time - that there is an apparent bias towards exaggerating the effects of climate change in the IPCC's reports.

    Professor Watson, currently chief scientific adviser to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, said that if the errors had just been innocent mistakes, as has been claimed by the current chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, some would probably have understated the impact of climate change.

    More here:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026932.ece

    It is as clear as day that the IPCC has for some time gone beyond being a neutral reporter on the best available science on climate change to become a campaiging organisation with all the associated bias that that entails. For it to regain any credibility, it needs at a minimum to replace Pachauri ASAP.


  • #180
    Cunsiderthis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 471 ✭✭Cunsiderthis


    We've often been assured that there is an overwhelming consensus amongst "scientists" that the IPCC pronouncements are right, and this is another link in the chain suggesting that that claim is, in itself, false.

    I also remember being assured that the IPCC only uses "peer reviewed" literature on which to base it's claims, and the recent announcements by the discredited Dr Pachuari seems also to disagree with that claim also.

    Professor Jones also has been quoted as now saying there has been no actual warming since 1995, so it's not clear what is happening.


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    It is as clear as day that the IPCC has for some time gone beyond being a neutral reporter on the best available science on climate change to become a campaiging organisation with all the associated bias that that entails.
    You don’t think that’s blowing things out of proportion ever so slightly? If that were the case, wouldn’t their ‘Summary for Policy Makers’ be littered with exaggerations?
    Cunsiderthis wrote: »
    We've often been assured that there is an overwhelming consensus amongst "scientists" that the IPCC pronouncements are right, and this is another link in the chain suggesting that that claim is, in itself, false.
    How so? Has Prof. Watson dismissed the substance of the IPCC reports?
    Cunsiderthis wrote: »
    I also remember being assured that the IPCC only uses "peer reviewed" literature on which to base it's claims...
    Assured by who?
    Cunsiderthis wrote: »
    Professor Jones also has been quoted as now saying there has been no actual warming since 1995....
    Probably because 15 years is too short a period of time from which to derive a statistically significant result? Or is there some other point you wanted to make by repeating this statement in separate threads?


  • #182
    gizmo555
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    djpbarry wrote: »
    You don’t think that’s blowing things out of proportion ever so slightly? If that were the case, wouldn’t their ‘Summary for Policy Makers’ be littered with exaggerations?

    No. For example, the totally spurious claims regarding the risk of near term crop failures in North Africa were included in the synthesis report and were cited by Pachauri in a speech in 2008 and by UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon in a speech last year. In that light, it is I think disingenuous of you to imply as you do that exaggerations are only really significant if they are in the summary for policy makers.

    I would refer you again to comments by past IPCC chairman Watson, who I would suggest is better qualified to judge than either of us:

    Watson said such claims [about a claimed risk of a 50% reduction in rain-fed crop yields in North Africa] should be based on hard evidence. “Any such projection should be based on peer-reviewed literature from computer modelling of how agricultural yields would respond to climate change. I can see no such data supporting the IPCC report,” he said.

    "The mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact. That is worrying. The IPCC needs to look at this trend in the errors and ask why it happened."

    Or to put in the vernacular, once is an accident, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action . . .

    “We should always be challenged by sceptics. The IPCC’s job is to weigh up the evidence. If it can’t be dismissed, it should be included in the report. Point out it’s in the minority and, if you can’t say why it’s wrong, just say it’s a different view.”

    He [Watson] said that the next report should acknowledge that some scientists believed the planet was warming at a much slower rate than has been claimed by the majority of scientists.

    (The implication here is that up to now the IPCC has not been duly acknowledging the full spectrum of reasoned expert opinions on AGW and climate change.)


  • #183
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    No. For example, the totally spurious claims regarding the risk of near term crop failures in North Africa were included in the synthesis report and were cited by Pachauri in a speech in 2008 and by UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon in a speech last year. In that light, it is I think disingenuous of you to imply as you do that exaggerations are only really significant if they are in the summary for policy makers.
    Maybe we should consider what the IPCC actually published with regard to this particular claim (emphasis mine):
    In other countries, additional risks that could be exacerbated by climate change include greater erosion, deficiencies in yields from rain-fed agriculture of up to 50% during the 2000-2020 period, and reductions in crop growth period (Agoumi, 2003).
    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-chapter9.pdf

    Compare this to what Jonathan Leake wrote in The Times:
    The most important is a claim that global warming could cut rain-fed north African crop production by up to 50% by 2020...
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7017907.ece

    Not the same thing at all.
    gizmo555 wrote: »
    I would refer you again to comments by past IPCC chairman Watson, who I would suggest is better qualified to judge than either of us:

    Watson said such claims [about a claimed risk of a 50% reduction in rain-fed crop yields in North Africa] should be based on hard evidence.
    The very first paragraph of section 9.4 in AR4-WGII reads as follows (again, emphasis mine):
    Having provided some background on existing sensitivities/vulnerabilities generated by a range of factors, including climate stress, some of the impacts and vulnerabilities that may arise under a changing climate in Africa, using the various scenarios and model projections as guides, are presented for various sectors. Note that several authors (e.g., Agoumi, 2003; Legesse et al., 2003; Conway, 2005, Thornton et al., 2006) warn against the over-interpretation of results, owing to the limitations of some of the projections and models used.
    gizmo555 wrote: »
    "The mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact. "
    Now this is just being disingenuous – what sort of mistakes do you suppose Jonathan Leake is searching for?
    gizmo555 wrote: »
    He [Watson] said that the next report should acknowledge that some scientists believed the planet was warming at a much slower rate than has been claimed by the majority of scientists.

    (The implication here is that up to now the IPCC has not been duly acknowledging the full spectrum of reasoned expert opinions on AGW and climate change.)
    Yes, we’ve seen these sort of claims before, yet the evidence reflecting the ‘full spectrum’ of scientific opinion is not forthcoming – why is that?


  • #184
    Mahatma coat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,869 ✭✭✭Mahatma coat


    heres another Glacier Story
    http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/giant-iceberg-could-change-weather-patterns/story-e6frfku0-1225834633227
    AN iceberg the size of Luxembourg knocked loose from the Antarctic continent earlier this month could disrupt the ocean currents driving weather patterns around the globe, researchers said.

    While the impact would not be felt for decades or longer, a slowdown in the production of colder, dense water could result in less temperate winters in the north Atlantic, they said.

    The 2550 sq km block broke off on February 12 or 13 from the Mertz Glacier Tongue, a 160km spit of floating ice protruding into the Southern Ocean from East Antarctica due south of Melbourne, researchers said.

    Some 400m thick, the iceberg could fill Sydney Harbour more than 100 times over.

    It could also disturb the area's exceptionally rich biodiversity, including a major colony of emperor penguins near Dumont d'Urville, site of a French scientific station, according to the scientists.

    "The ice tongue was almost broken already. It was hanging like a loose tooth,'' French glaciologist Benoit Legresy said.

    Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.

    End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.

    Mr Legresy has been monitoring the Metz Glacier via satellite images and on the ground for a decade in cooperation with Australian scientists.

    The billion-tonne mass was dislodged by another, older iceberg, known as B9B, which split off in 1987.

    Jammed against the Antarctic continent for more than 20 years, B9B smashed into the Metz tongue like a slow-motion battering ram after it began to drift.

    Both natural cycles and manmade climate change contribute to the collapse ice shelves and glaciers.

    Tide and ocean currents constantly beat against exposed areas, while longer summers and rising temperatures also take a toll.

    "Obviously when there is warmer water, these ice tongues will become more fragile,'' Mr Legresy said.

    Since breaking off, the iceberg - along with the newly mobile B9B, which is about the same size - have moved into an ajoining area called a ploynya.

    Distributed across the Southern Ocean, ploynyas are zones that produce dense water, super cold and rich in salt, that sinks to the bottom of the sea and drives the conveyor-belt like circulation around the globe.

    If these icebergs move east and run aground, or drift north into warmer climes, they will have no impact on these currents.

    "But if they stay in this area - which is likely - they could block the production of this dense water, essentially putting a lid on the polynya,'' Mr Legresy explained.

    The Metz Glacier Polynya is particularly strong and accounts for 20 per cent of the "bottom water'' in the world, he added.

    Eventually, the icebergs will die a natural death, but their lifespan depends on where they go.

    Adrift, they could melt in a could of decades. If they remain lodged against the Antarctic landmass, they could persist far longer.

    I think the style of 'reporting' in this article highlights the style of Bias towards worst case hypotethicals we have seen from so many of these Doom mongers.

    Which is the most likely situation?

    Which will sell the most papers/get the most research money?


  • #185
    bonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Mahatma coat wrote: »
    I think the style of 'reporting' in this article highlights the style of Bias towards worst case hypotethicals we have seen from so many of these Doom mongers.

    Which is the most likely situation?

    Which will sell the most papers/get the most research money?

    Researchers have been watching this for more than a decade as pointed out in the article you link to.

    The newspaper, however, hasn't been constantly reporting it for a decade. It is only interested when something actually happens.There may have been articles in 1989 saying "if B9B does such-and-such, it could knock loose other mammoth icebergs", but since then there's probably been very little. I honestly can't see a news paper regularly reporting that "researchers are still monitoring B9B and the MGT, although nothing has changed since we last reported".

    As for research grants....I don't see how a newspaper has any effect on that. The stuff was being researched, is being researched, and will continue to be researched.


  • #186
    mike65
    Closed Accounts Posts: 88,972 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    bump

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/08/glaciers-mountains
    The world's greatest snow-capped peaks, which run in a chain from the Himalayas to Tian Shan on the border of China and Kyrgyzstan, have lost no ice over the last decade, new research shows.

    The discovery has stunned scientists, who had believed that around 50bn tonnes of meltwater were being shed each year and not being replaced by new snowfall.

    The study is the first to survey all the world's icecaps and glaciers and was made possible by the use of satellite data. Overall, the contribution of melting ice outside the two largest caps – Greenland and Antarctica – is much less then previously estimated, with the lack of ice loss in the Himalayas and the other high peaks of Asia responsible for most of the discrepancy.

    Bristol University glaciologist Prof Jonathan Bamber, who was not part of the research team, said: "The very unexpected result was the negligible mass loss from high mountain Asia, which is not significantly different from zero."

    The melting of Himalayan glaciers caused controversy in 2009 when a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change mistakenly stated that they would disappear by 2035, instead of 2350. However, the scientist who led the new work is clear that while greater uncertainty has been discovered in Asia's highest mountains, the melting of ice caps and glaciers around the world remains a serious concern.

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


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    I think this thread has run its course. Further discussion of climate change may take place in the appropriate mega-thread.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement