It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
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.
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
(visit the link for the full news article)
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.
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.
Originally posted by FractalChaos13242017
1. The mountains and the glaciers, are they land locked?
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.
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...
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...
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.
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.
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)
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...
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...
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.
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"?
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)
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)
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.
1. The mountains and the glaciers, are they land locked?
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.
"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."