Satellite study of Asian mountains show that glaciers are NOT melting - and some are actually gainin

Satellite study of Asian mountains show that glaciers are NOT melting - and some are actually gaining new ice

www.da ilymail.co.uk

Huge glaciers in the area between Pakistan and China are puzzling scientists - and disproving the doom-laden predictions of some climate experts.

The glaciers in the Karakoram Range between northern Pakistan and western China have actually grown, rather than shrinking.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Like I said in the original post.

Although the growth is so small that the glaciers might not be growing, what is clear is that these glaciers are not shrinking.

Now, these glaciers are in Asia, and China happens to be the most polluted country in the world, and their emissions of anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 far surpasses the emissions from countries like the U.S.

Meanwhile I am not advocating that it is ok to emit/release more "real toxic chemicals or toxic gases", the fact is that this shows that atmospheric CO2, or even anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 are not the cause of the warming, or the cause of the Climate Change.

If it was true that the main reason for Climate Change, or warming is anthropogenic CO2, then these glacies should be melting at an alarming rate, but they are not, so the causes of the warming, and the causes of the dramatic Climate Changes must be natural.

I would like to know which Scientists did this. Then see just what exactly was done and by who. Id like to compare results.

I cant take the Daily Mail as a reliable source. As much as I agree with the OP. I stopped paying much attention to this however this news if true, is good imo.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Satellite study of Asian mountains show that glaciers are NOT melting - and some are actually gaining new ice

www.da ilymail.co.uk

Huge glaciers in the area between Pakistan and China are puzzling scientists - and disproving the doom-laden predictions of some climate experts.

The glaciers in the Karakoram Range between northern Pakistan and western China have actually grown, rather than shrinking.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Like I said in the original post.

Although the growth is so small that the glaciers might not be growing, what is clear is that these glaciers are not shrinking.

Now, these glaciers are in Asia, and China happens to be the most polluted country in the world, and their emissions of anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 far surpasses the emissions from countries like the U.S.

Meanwhile I am not advocating that it is ok to emit/release more "real toxic chemicals or toxic gases", the fact is that this shows that atmospheric CO2, or even anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 are not the cause of the warming, or the cause of the Climate Change.

If it was true that the main reason for Climate Change, or warming is anthropogenic CO2, then these glacies should be melting at an alarming rate, but they are not, so the causes of the warming, and the causes of the dramatic Climate Changes must be natural.

1. The mountains and the glaciers, are they land locked?

2. To fall under the assumption that the production of CO2 impacts the immediate surrounding areas of its creation is silly.

3. I'm just going to toss this in here, before the conversation switches gears and rears this aspects ugly head:
Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production
www.newscientist.com...

Long story short... plants don't just get up and produce more vegetation based on available CO2. There's soooo much more to that statement, but I'll leave it at that. Well, I guess I'll say that it's dependent on species, location and a whole list of other factors. Gotta yin the yang, and everything in between. Unless you choose to debate this... I'm no expert, so yeah... maybe a good conversation about this is warranted.

4. Is the warming, or 'climate change' purely anthropogenic... nope, in my opinion. Does that remove the influence, nope. As to the severity, or strength of influence... that's up for debate. I'd say it's fairly underestimated, also... the science community and all the fancy models in the world truly fail in accurately depicting any reality of the situation(the whole, conformation bias meets information bias meets Observer-expectancy effect)

5.

Here's a fun article you may be interested in...
Ozone, Nitrogen Change the Way Rising CO2 Affects Earth’s Water Cycle

www.ecology.com...

anyways, fun article, S&Fs...

BTW, since I have your attention... would you be so kind to contribute to the following thread of mine:
Just What's So Wrong With Socialism
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by FractalChaos13242017

1. The mountains and the glaciers, are they land locked?

This would not help you in either argument in the least.

Originally posted by FractalChaos13242017
2. To fall under the assumption that the production of CO2 impacts the immediate surrounding areas of its creation is silly.

Ah, and merely making such a claim as you did debunks the facts?...

Are you warmer closer to a fire or farther away from it?... If CO2 was the cause of any noticeable warming then the areas with the most warming should be those closer to the sources of anthropogenic CO2. There is no way around that no matter how hard you try... This is called logic, not silly comments like the ones you made...

Originally posted by FractalChaos13242017
3. I'm just going to toss this in here, before the conversation switches gears and rears this aspects ugly head:
Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production
www.newscientist.com...

Most plants, which includes trees and other green biomass benefit with higher levels of atmopsheric CO2.

Second of all, and I have shonw this before, it is also known that with higher levels of atmospheric CO2 than at present plants, and trees make better use of water, wasting less water which means more potable water for people and animals.

Third of all, that "Newscientist" article is very bias, they start off by claiming "it is a myth that higher level sof CO2 will increase plant growth and food production" when this is a fact... Most plants, and trees as well as other green biomass do benefit with higher levels of atmospheric CO2...

Originally posted by FractalChaos13242017
4. Is the warming, or 'climate change' purely anthropogenic... nope, in my opinion. Does that remove the influence, nope. As to the severity, or strength of influence... that's up for debate. I'd say it's fairly underestimated, also...

Aaah, so you base all the above on "YOUR Opinion"... What were you saying about "silly arguments"?

Originally posted by minto
I would like to know which Scientists did this. Then see just what exactly was done and by who. Id like to compare results.

I cant take the Daily Mail as a reliable source. As much as I agree with the OP. I stopped paying much attention to this however this news if true, is good imo.

The article mentions a couple of the scientists such as Etienne Berthier, a glaciologist at the Université de Toulouse in France, and Professor John Wahr from Colorado Boulder University. They used satellite measurements taken with the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment, or GRACE.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


These glaciers account for 3% of the worlds ice layer (discounting Arctic / Antarctica) - it is a specific part of that mountain chain. Some other glaciers are also showing signs of growth.

However, the larger bodies of ice (Arctic / Antarctica) are showing definite signs of ice loss.

In itself, this is not proof of either glacier retreat or advance globally. All it shows is that glaciers in a very specific part of the world that account for a tiny percentage of global ice coverage are growing a bit.

Claims for either pro or anti climate change cannot be made on this data.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


I apologize before hand for the crap job of quoting your previous reply

Originally posted by FractalChaos13242017
1. The mountains and the glaciers, are they land locked?

This would not help you in either argument in the least.

Land locked absolutely has to do with everything about my argument. Although I didn't even make a case for an argument, other than saying:

the science community and all the fancy models in the world truly fail in accurately depicting any reality of the situation(the whole, conformation bias meets information bias meets Observer-expectancy effect)

Which, I guess I should have elaborated and not left you hanging on the implications of this statement. I may be correct, you may be correct... but with certainty, no way in hell.

Originally posted by FractalChaos13242017
2. To fall under the assumption that the production of CO2 impacts the immediate surrounding areas of its creation is silly.

Ah, and merely making such a claim as you did debunks the facts?...

Are you warmer closer to a fire or farther away from it?... If CO2 was the cause of any noticeable warming then the areas with the most warming should be those closer to the sources of anthropogenic CO2. There is no way around that no matter how hard you try... This is called logic, not silly comments like the ones you made...

I truly hope you don't think you're going to squeak away from this comment with out looking foolish lol! I'm sorry, no offense... but 'Come the **** on'

Do I seriously have to break down the simple physics of this, and show how you fail to actually put this into perspective. Heat from a fire... really? There's much more to the interaction with the atmosphere and anthropogenic CO2 before it can be considered impacting 'global warming' or the 'greenhouse effect'... I know you know this! To pretend that these interactions and cycles are regional, and remain so is so incredibly shortsighted that I'm debating if this topic is worth spending the time debating with you. Again, I've seen some of your previous posts, 'I know you know this'... I'm almost at a loss for words.

Most plants, which includes trees and other green biomass benefit with higher levels of atmospheric CO2.

Second of all, and I have shonw this before, it is also known that with higher levels of atmospheric CO2 than at present plants, and trees make better use of water, wasting less water which means more potable water for people and animals.

Third of all, that "Newscientist" article is very bias, they start off by claiming "it is a myth that higher level sof CO2 will increase plant growth and food production" when this is a fact... Most plants, and trees as well as other green biomass do benefit with higher levels of atmospheric CO2...

'most plants' lol... that speaks for itself.

Other studies have shown that increasing CO2 is changing how plant “pores,” or stomata, discharge water. With elevated CO2 levels, leaf pores contract and sometimes close to conserve internal water reserves. This “stomatal conductance” response increases water use efficiency and reduces the rate of transpiration.

Ozone, Nitrogen Change the Way Rising CO2 Affects Earth’s Water Cycle

Yup, thanks for repeating the article that I posted.

I think it's worth considering that with increased run off, the decrease in converted energy of hydrogen into biomass and where it goes from there results in a more volatile environment conducive towards weather extremes. Couple that with increased temperatures resulting in plants producing less biomass... you have climate change.

I do however agree that the 'newscientist' article is VERY bias' lol. I actually debated on posting it for this reason. This particular article does not define my understanding of the topic, please believe that! I would even go as far to say that I could easily debunk a majority of it, although that's not my intentions.

Originally posted by FractalChaos13242017
4. Is the warming, or 'climate change' purely anthropogenic... nope, in my opinion. Does that remove the influence, nope. As to the severity, or strength of influence... that's up for debate. I'd say it's fairly underestimated, also...

Aaah, so you base all the above on "YOUR Opinion"... What were you saying about "silly arguments"?

Oh man... I love how you choose to cut off my statement at the 'also...' part! EPIC! You studied well, the art of rhetoric young padawon!

also... the science community and all the fancy models in the world truly fail in accurately depicting any reality of the situation(the whole, conformation bias meets information bias meets Observer-expectancy effect)

I've already addressed this, but to further make sense of it.

I admittedly have responded in a rather pious fashion, and haven't explained anything... I will be back later to address these points later. This is by no means my first rodeo, and the monotony of these arguments become rather tiresome to me.

We are basing much of this on opinion for models and true understandings presented by the scientific community directed at these very topics are always being debunked or reworked. Which is something I was also addressing when I said...

also... the science community and all the fancy models in the world truly fail in accurately depicting any reality of the situation(the whole, conformation bias meets information bias meets Observer-expectancy effect)

If you don't know those terms, I highly suggest becoming well acquainted!

I'll be back...

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

 

These glaciers account for 3% of the worlds ice layer (discounting Arctic / Antarctica) - it is a specific part of that mountain chain. Some other glaciers are also showing signs of growth.

However, the larger bodies of ice (Arctic / Antarctica) are showing definite signs of ice loss.

In itself, this is not proof of either glacier retreat or advance globally. All it shows is that glaciers in a very specific part of the world that account for a tiny percentage of global ice coverage are growing a bit.

Claims for either pro or anti climate change cannot be made on this data.

EXACTLY and that's where the whole questioning of:

1. The mountains and the glaciers, are they land locked?

comes into play...



I'm so glad that I'm not the only one that understands this!

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


The article is correct, scientists are puzzled by those particular mountains. Why are those glaciers not showing any decline, while so many others are. Like the picture below illustrates.




The caption for this particular image is

Changes in ice thickness (in centimeters per year) during 2003-2010 as measured by NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites, averaged over each of the world's ice caps and glacier systems outside of Greenland and Antarctica. Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/University of Colorado.

Professor John Wahr who is the key to your entire argument writes the following...

"Earth is losing a huge amount of ice to the ocean annually, and these new results will help us answer important questions in terms of both sea rise and how the planet's cold regions are responding to global change," said University of Colorado Boulder physics professor John Wahr, who helped lead the study. "The strength of GRACE is it sees all the mass in the system, even though its resolution is not high enough to allow us to determine separate contributions from each individual glacier."... "One possible explanation is that previous estimates were based on measurements taken primarily from some of the lower, more accessible glaciers in Asia and extrapolated to infer the behavior of higher glaciers. But unlike the lower glaciers, most of the high glaciers are located in very cold environments and require greater amounts of atmospheric warming before local temperatures rise enough to cause significant melting. This makes it difficult to use low-elevation, ground-based measurements to estimate results from the entire system."

Your whole argument is based upon the twisting the data of a legitimate scientist. Grow more plants? I don't think so! Try reading up on the real Professor John Wahr and the actual studies he has done instead of believing anything coming from that shrill the Daily Mail. Believe me when I say the stuff he is talking about is a lot scarier than anything that rag has ever printed.

No need for two threads with the same topic.

Please continue the discussion on the original thread, here.

Thread closed.