Himalayan glaciers actually gaining ice, space scans show

A new study of survey data gleaned from space has shown a vast region of Himalayan glaciers is actually gaining ice steadily, mystifying climate scientists who had thought the planet's "third pole" to be melting. The study was carried out by comparing two sets of space data, the first gathered by instruments aboard the space …

[General Pance]

Maybe it's happening glacially.

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe but there is balance with exploding icebergs :

http://www.videobash.com/video_show/exploding-iceberg-in-antarctica-254769 [extreemly work safe with Mary Whitehouse]

[TeeCee]

Exploding icebergs?

They missed that one in the current incessant deluge of "This is the real reason the Titanic sank" documentaries.

[James Micallef]

Happening glacially

Rather than happening glacially, I would say it's happening minutely:

from the article "Across the targeted 5,615km2 region of the Karakorum mountains lying on the Chinese border with India and Pakistan, the glaciers had gained substantial amounts of mass"

from a couple of (non-wikipedia) online sources: "the himalayas extend from west to east for about 2,500 km in a curve, from the pamit knot in the northwest to the valley of the brahmaputra river in the east. and with a width of 100 - 400 km. the himalayas range covering an area of 612,021 sq. km. "

So the title of the article really should be "Less than 1% of Himalayan glaciers actually GAINING ice, space scans show"

[Anonymous Coward]

THE PROBLEM IS YOU IDIOTS DONT UNDERSTAND HOW GLOBAL WARMING WORKS THE HOTTER IT GETS THE MORE ICE WERE ALL GOING TO DIE OF HEAT PROSTRATION WHILE ENCASED IN SOLID

[Anonymous Coward]

@Big Dumb Guy 555

Obvious troll is obvious.

[asdf]

A tired topic from a broken record

1. See Lewis Page Climate denier article

2. Skip reading article as all credibility on the issue long gone.

3. Post comment but now this has become religious dogma on both sides instead just post this list.

4. No profit only lots of confusion and divisive name calling.

[Misoriented]

The climate change debate is irrelevant

I've never understood why the climate change debate makes any sense. It seems to come down this question: "Have humans polluted the environment so much that it's changing the climate?" But what does it matter if we're affecting the climate or not? Clearly we have polluted the environment to some degree and clearly the climate is changing, because it's always changing, whether we did it or not.

Whether the two are correlated or not is moot. Either way, we should always try to pollute as little as possible. Pollution causes many problems, and possible climate change is only one of them. Why has the climate debate turned into an argument over whether it's ok to continue dumping all the crap we want into the environment? Why is it a political issue instead of an obvious truism? It's never ok to cause more pollution than necessary and we should always be working to reduce our pollution output. Climate change just clouds the real issue. Perhaps an orange-brown hazy kind of cloud.

[nsld]

Doesnt matter

They would still make up taxes for global warming if we where stuck in an ice age.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Doesnt matter

Of course! how dare you want fair taxes!

[Armando 123]

Re: Doesnt matter

P.J. O'Rourke put it best.

Talking taxes to the government is like talking garbage to your dog. You can tell your dog to stay out of the garbage, but all he hears is "Garbage!"

[g e]

Re: Doesnt matter

Yeah cos it'll get warmer SOMETIME and it's your fault TODAY.

[Mad Mike]

Watch the excuses come out

Now sit back and watch the excuses come pouring out from the scientists who live on global warming research grants................................

Scientists shouldn't be paid by grant. Grants cause the science to become secondary to ensuring the grant continues. Better to pay them a salary irrespective of their findings and get some real science.

[Elmer Phud]

Re: Watch the excuses come out

Excuse?

It's those Asians coming over here stealing our water and adding to thier ice mountain, just t make us crawl to the Chinese for our, no doubt, water with nasty visruses in it.

I didn't fight in two world wars etc. etc.

[Some Beggar]

Re: Watch the excuses come out

Feel free to post some evidence to back up this dreary old conspiracy chestnut.

[g e]

Dreary conspiracy

Which one, the one you suspect is going on when some high grade science opposing your opinion comes out or the Warmologists?

[Leslie Graham]

Re: Watch the excuses come out

Just a small point. Scientists aren't paid by grant. They are paid by salary.

Not that it makes any difference to their lies but I think it's important to get our side of the story right.

[Mad Mike]

Re: Watch the excuses come out

@Leslie Graham.

Well, my sister is a scientist (not anything to do with climate change) and she gets a salary, but the money for the salary comes from a grant and therefore she is effectively paid by grant. Every so often, lots of ideas go for grant money and if successful, the salary keeps getting paid. If none of the grant applications are successful, she is made redundant...

So, although technically she is paid a salary, without the grant, the salary disappears too. So, the grant is rather important to continued employment, hence my comment.

[Elmer Phud]

Re: Watch the excuses come out

Thus all scientists and science is funded this way?

That is the Daily Mail/Sun approach - not exactly scientific, is it?

[Jim Birch]

Re: Watch the excuses come out

If your sister part of the Let's Make Up Science Mega Conspiracy tell her to stop.

[Mad Mike]

Re: Watch the excuses come out

@Jim Birch.

No my sister is not part of the 'Let's Make Up Science Mega Conspiracy'.

She is actually a well respected geneticist (I should refer to her as Dr) and is currently being made redundant due to the research grant for the work running out!! So, I absolutely know what I'm talking about. She'd love another grant as that would keep her salary coming in!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Watch the excuses come out

Roughly speaking, there are two classes of (academic) scientist.

Some (Profs, Lecturers, etc) are paid by their institution, not by grant.

Others (the postdocs/research associates/etc) are paid by grant money; no grant means no job.

In some countries (e.g the US, I believe) some who in the UK would normally be 100% institution funded are instead only part funded by it; so no grant means a pay cut.

In my experience (i,e. mostly the UK) institutions are absolutely ruthless about getting rid of un(grant)funded postdocs. They do not care how much part-finished work gets binned, or how much stress is caused; out you go.

If you are a lucky postdoc, the boss (ie a prof/etc) does care and tries to get another grant funded before you get the boot; but there are no guarantees.

[Fink-Nottle]

Re: Watch the excuses come out

Surely you're not suggesting that grant funded scientists would put their employers interests before the truth?

I cannot believe anyone would be that unprincipled.

That would be like a journalist who wrote 'contentious' articles simply to generate page views on his employer's website.

Ridiculous, eh?

[L.B.]

Re: Watch the excuses come out

Perhaps if you tried getting the story from someone less biassed it would help. This is typical Lewis crap reporting, only printing the fragments that he agrees with and ignoring the rest.

A small excerpt from another source of this story (BBC web site):

"A French team used satellite data to show that glaciers in part of the Karakoram range, to the west of the Himalayan region, are putting on mass.

The reason is unclear, as glaciers in other parts of the Himalayas are losing mass - which also is the global trend."

So they state categorically that the trend is for global glacial melting, and that this is an unexplained event in a one region.

[L.B.]

Re: Watch the excuses come out

PS: Yes the quote is from the BBC, but it is reporting the scientists views not the journalists!

[Dave 126]

Re: Watch the excuses come out

Organic chemist: Benefits ICI. Gets paid by ICI.

Microbiologist. Benefits GSK. Gets paid by GSK.

Climate Scientist. May benefit future generations. Gets paid by who?

[Anonymous Coward]

So which is it?

I noticed the same information on the BBC this morning, but it put a completely different spin on the issue. I have no opinion on which is right, but I'd be very interested to know whose 'spin' is more accurate.

This article seems to imply the finding is significantly at odds with current thinking. The BBC article implies that this is a minor regional anomaly that doesn't have much bearing on global trends, e.g. "The reason is unclear, as glaciers in other parts of the Himalayas are losing mass - which also is the global trend... it is clear that the trend contrasts with other parts of the wider Himalayas-Hindu Kush region"

So which is it? Is the growth of this glacier an insignificant blip in a wider trend, or is it a major setback to current climate models? Or a bit of both?

[Captain Save-a-ho]

Re: So which is it?

If anyone knew, would this stupid fucking debate still be raging? We'll all be blissfully happy in our worm farms before anyone actually has a solid explanation.

[jabuzz]

Re: So which is it?

In general they are melting, that a small number of glaciers which are technically not in the Himalayas anyway are getting thicker is almost certainly down in increased precipitation on them; though we don't know for certain.

Remember it is global warming, which does not mean that all areas will get warmer. In addition global warming will lead to shifting weather patterns leading to some areas getting increased precipitation. If this falls as snow then glaciers can very easily get thicker/longer.

Trust Lewis to put the usual everything is a scam spin on it.

[Geoff Campbell]

Re: So which is it?

Well, here's the thing. Lewis Page has significant previous form for over-stating the relevance of findings such as these. When I read the article on the BBC web site over the weekend, I made a mental note to look out for the Lewis Page "Global warming is a myth, look, here, these new findings *prove* it!" article come Monday morning. And, right on cue, here it is.

I have no idea which view is right, having not yet read the source material behind the articles. But I do know I will be giving no credence whatsoever to Page's views on the subject.

GJC

[Geoff Campbell]

Downvoted?

Lewis, is that you? :-)

GJC

[jai]

@Geoff Campbell Re: So which is it?

Conversely, you could argue that the BBC and other large media outlets have significant previous form for under-stating the relevance of such findings and putting a pro-warming spin on them. But you seem happy to give them plenty of credence.

[Mad Mike]

Re: @Geoff Campbell So which is it?

That's the problem......money talks. For scientists, journalists etc.etc. You'll never get an unbiased view as each is looking after the next paycheck. They also (including scientists) use very bad and simplistic science to make their viewpoint. Glaciers shrinking must mean increasing temperatures is a common one. Whether glaciers increase, decrease or stay the same is a lot more complicated than simply air temperature.

[Eddie Edwards]

Re: @Geoff Campbell So which is it?

Actually, if you take the time to read what Geoff in fact said, he isn't necessarily giving credence to the BBC either. He's just giving zero credence to Lewis Page's spin. He doesn't have to take a position himself to say this.

[Geoff Campbell]

Re: @Geoff Campbell So which is it?

Thanks, Eddie, you're spot on.

I give no credence to any journalistic output until I have read the background, which in this case I haven't. But for the hard of thinking, let me re-state what Eddie said - just because I disbelieve Lewis, does not mean I believe the BBC.

GJC

[Anigel]

@Geoff Cambell Re: So which is it?

There have been many occasions where topics I understood very well have been covered on the BBC and in every single case there has been a very biased spin put on it which was not justified by the actual facts behind the story. This is why one of the BBC's monikers is the Biased Broadcasting Company, Try it out for yourself. Look for a BBC news story on any topic you understand fully and see how they have spun the story to fit their own agenda

[Mad Mike]

Re: @Geoff Cambell So which is it?

@Anigel.

Yep. I totally agree. Journalists are quite often the most ill informed. I've read articles on ships where a picture had been misidentified, when the ships name is clearly visible in the photo!! In one case, they even identified a merchant vessel as a RN warship!!

A journalist is the last person anyone should trust.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: So which is it?

The BBC has a nasty habit for over stating the alarmist point of view. You only need to see how their news reporters end every line about bad weather with "is this another sign of climate change?"

[Mad Mike]

Re: So which is it?

Interestingly, from having a quick look around the net, it would appear something like a sixth to an eighth (it was a pie chart) of glaciers are increasing whilst the rest are decreasing. So, not exactly 99% to 1%, but definately in favour of loss.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: So which is it?

Its a case of who you believe, scientists and journalists or some ex- navy type with opinion bigger than his intellect?

[Mad Mike]

Re: So which is it?

'Its a case of who you believe, scientists and journalists or some ex- navy type with opinion bigger than his intellect?'

Name calling and insulting someones intellect (whether true or not in your opinion) is the worst possible way to prove your case.

[tslate]

Re: So which is it?

Well since you believe those with "big" intellects know everything about everything, then it is "they" (scientists) who actually have caused the problem we are now facing. "They" have managed to invent every conceivable product which man and the environment now suffers from. Why is it you continually blame "people". We aren't the ones who have rained down a holocaust of chemical pollutants on the world. Apparently "science" still can't cure cancer and still denies chemicals are harmful. WTF do we need yet another boatload of nitwits tellings us the obvious. We can start by just laying waste to all the scientists who keep improving our lives, then and only then will we see a genuine reduction in pollutants and "incurable" disease.

[Alan W. Rateliff, II]

Re: So which is it?

Actually, the point in this article, and in other cases, is the systematic debunking of various claimed significances. For instance, if IPCC claimed that the Himalayas would be void of glacial ice by 2035, or whenever, then shouted from its highest pulpit and repeated by its disciple groups that this was yet another proof of Global Warming/Global Climate Change (two terms which are largely incompatible.) But then when proven inaccurate the same groups sneer that this is an insignificant area, isolated anomaly, happening even though it shouldn't because we say so, etc.

Same with Al Gore and polar bears, record heat, record cold, record acne breakouts, record crops, record crop shortages, record rain fall, record drought, et al.

In short, the AGW/GCC crowd sets up pillars to support its arrogance, and those pillars keep getting knocked down. Yet they insist the building should still stand even without its foundation.

Paris, a pillar.

[indulis]

At least the IPCC ADMITS when it has a problem

Has the Reg ever admitted when its articles have been wrong re AGW? Even provably wrong? Has *any* denier ever admitted they were wrong? The myths about ocean cooling, and global cooling continue to be spread even though they are definitively provable wrong. The scientific process used by the scientists whose data and conclusions are summarised by the IPCC report ensures that errors are discovered and corrected.

As soon as the glacier prediction was shown to be wrong a retraction/correction was issued by the IPCC. Any record of any denier thinktank doing something similar when faced with overwhelming evidence? No, I didn't think so.

So, in summary, one or two bricks may have been knocked out of the huge strong wall proving AGW, but the overall integrity has not been compromised. The side opposing the evidence of AGW has a small pile of half-baked bricks and rubble that no-one in their right mind would use to build a global policy on.

[Mad Mike]

Re: At least the IPCC ADMITS when it has a problem

I take the point and certainly there are issues with people admitting mistakes when concrete evidence appears. However, this is on both sides. I wouldn't want to say one side is better or worse than the other. For instance. The University of East Anglia went through a process of deliberate concealment and denial of data that suggested the opposite of their view was true. Now, I'm not saying they might not have been the one bad apple, but to say only AGW supporters admit fault and deniers always cover it up is highly disingenuous. Both sides have attempted to maintain positions against new evidence and have even attempted to cover up the evidence.

My position is simple.....it doesn't matter who's causing it. Attempting to keep the climate the same whether the changes are natural or man made is irrelevant. We, as a species, need to simply move with the climate. If we adapt (one of the reasons we became dominant), we'll survive. Otherwise, we'll die. This is all according to Darwin. Survival of the fittest. If we refuse to adapt and cooperate (in say moving people between regions), we'll die out and it will actually prove how right and proper nature is. Arguing who's causing it (when nobody really knows for sure) is pointless.

[Voland's right hand]

Re: So which is it?

Neither.

The "shrinking" glaciers are downwind from the heavily polluted India.

The "growing" glaciers have virtually no industry upwind from them for thousands of miles. See the jetstream map for the area - before it reaches Karacorum it blows across Afganistan and the virtually uninhabited portions of Iran and Northern Pakistan.

It is not warming which melts Himalayan glaciers, it is particulate polution. Most moisture coming up from the Indian ocean across India with the monsoons settles on the windward (facing India) slopes (along with all pollution it picks up on the way). The slope facing China is a mountain desert with rainfall comparable to the middle of the Sahara.

Even 1% albedo change from tar which industry, badly maintained internal combustion engines and diesels put in the air can make more damage to glaciers and snow cover than all of the annual temperature changes reported so far combined.

Nothing to see here, move along, it is still humans who make for the "melting", just nobody wants to admit "how" they do it.

[Leslie Graham]

Re: So which is it?

"...It is not warming which melts Himalayan glaciers, it is particulate polution..."

It's long been known that 'soot' is a contributory factor in the varying melt rates of the high altitude Karakorum range glaciers. There is no evidence it is the primary factor either there or in the rest of the world's glaciers.

And, of course, the majority of the Himalyan glaciers ARE in rapid retreat - only the high altitude glaciers are building up as a result of the increased precipitation. The lower ones are melting before our eyes. You don't have to be a climate scientist to see this - you just have to go there and take a look for yourself.

[Leslie Graham]

Re: So which is it?

Hi Ralph

It's just a minor anomoly. Don't take my word for it. Simply go and have a look for yourself at any of the other 99% of glaciers around the world.

Interesting that some factions will make a huge fuss about a tiny area anomalous area and yet completely ignore what is happenning everywhere else.

Stand by for; "The Arctic has recovered!" and suchlike. Heh heh.

[DrXym]

Re: So which is it?

"I noticed the same information on the BBC this morning, but it put a completely different spin on the issue. I have no opinion on which is right, but I'd be very interested to know whose 'spin' is more accurate."

Cherry picking is a common tactic of denialists. Pull some data out of context, ignore the rest and then pretend the data "proves" that the trend is not happening at all. I would not be surprised if the exact same thing is happening here.

[Mad Mike]

Re: So which is it?

'Cherry picking is a common tactic of denialists.'

Yes, you're right to a point. However, it's also a common tactic of those proposing it as well. Take the University of East Anglia hiding data, ignoring some and emails showing they were carrying out a campaign of ignoring what didn't suit them. All are guilty and nothing in this area is transparent as almost everyone has something to gain from their angle.

[Some Beggar]

Re: So which is it?

"Take the University of East Anglia "

You mean the CRU that has been investigated by eight separate committees and exonerated by all of them of any fraud or scientific misconduct?

Perhaps you should consider actually reading something rather than relying on the witless rumour-mongers down the pub.

[jsam]

Re: So which is it?

The most interesting facet of climategate was there was no gate. Multiple reviews all found the science was sound. The deniers deny even these findings. That's when you know you've hit upon a real denier - when multiple lines of evidence don't stick.

[Steve Crook]

Re: So which is it?

There are other first order forcings as well as CO2, and they include land use change, aerosols and particulates. These operate in a regional fashion and change weather patterns. It is simply not reasonable to attribute glacier melt to a single cause.

The decline of Kilimanjaro glaciers was originally attributed to AGW and was a poster child of the effects of AGW, but now, almost everyone accepts that the *predominant* cause has been deforestation below Kilimanjaro.

The records kept of the size of glaciers is not particularly good in either extent or depth. With satellite imaging, we'll have much better coverage, but it could take 100 years before we really know the truth....

[Michael H.F. Wilkinson]

Good news for snow leopards.

The real beasts that is, not the OS (which by all accounts was and is doing well).

Also good news for the scientific debate. Basing theories on shaky data is like building on quicksand. Better data are always a boon.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's only part of it

It's only part of the it and that area is near pakistan, you know the area that for a few years had extra rain and flood. Rain moved to moutains, got colder, snower, more ice, blah blah.

Realy nothing to see here, but when it comes to climate we have had many years of panic as the day was hotter than yesterday type statistics so was bound to happen.

[Anonymous Coward]

"which had assumed that the Asian glaciers were melting away rapidly"

Um, they are, just because one area of the Himalayas has been proven to be an anomaly doesn't mean the rest is, still, after the last global warming rant by the same author I assumed that the Reg had gone all Sauron and started employing trolls.

[Usually Right or Wrong]

Here we have

Lewis Page flying yet again in the face of a multi billion $ industry and expecting to be taken seriously.

Doesn't he realise that the new ice is warmer than the old ice and warmer ice spread out further than colder ice is warmer so the earth's warming must be accelerating at an alarming rate and the global warming budget must be doubled immediately and the time targets halved and doubters would be burned at the stake if they promise not to give off greenhouse gasses during the burning.

I'm fed up with all the hype and giving governments excuses to tax us for eating hot (global warming because they had to be heated) pasties.

[Leslie Graham]

Re: Here we have

"...Lewis Page flying yet again in the face of a multi billion $ industry and expecting to be taken seriously...."

The combined proven assets of the fossil fuel industry is TWENTY SEVEN TRILLION DOLLARS.

Fossil fuels are subsidised globaly to the tune of 420 BILLION DOLLARS per year.

So please - enough with this ridiculous "scientists are only saying this for the money" nonsense. It's simply insulting to everyone on both 'sides' of the debate. Grow up. Show us your scientific references for your position and refrain from making libelous and completely unsubstantiated assertions in a public form if you expect anyone to take you seriously.

So either put up or shut up.

Climate scientists get paid a pittance by comparison to oil compnay PR and spin doctors let alone thier CEO's. They don't get a penny of the fabled 'grant money' themselves - that goes towards buying sattelites and radio sondes etc.

Even I make three times what a climate scientist makes and I don't have to cope with death threats from people who are so terrified of the coming change they would rather kill someone than face up to reality.

[g e]

Then lets take the financial incentive away

And see if the results change.

That's a nice scientific approach don't you think?

[Michael H.F. Wilkinson]

Re: Then lets take the financial incentive away

Unfortunately, politicians only know how to take financial incentives away by taking the finances away. This does change the scientific outcome, in that there is less science. Please do not give the powers that be any ideas

[Some Beggar]

Re: Then lets take the financial incentive away

What financial incentive are you talking about?

I've never seen anybody put forward a practical method by which the supposed financial distortion of peer-reviewed science is happening. The finances of all the major funding bodies are public both in terms of where the money comes from and where it goes. The finances of all reputable universities are public. The review processes of all reputable journals are public (although typically the reviewers themselves are officially anonymous). I don't see queues of lowly academics at the Bentley showroom up the road. What are they spending all their ill-gotten warming money on? Corduroy elbow patches and chalk?

If I had a few spare billion, could you explain exactly how I would go about perverting a scientific consensus? Because without some mechanism then all the accusations of bias and gravy trains are empty bluster.

[Adam-the-Kiwi]

Re: Then lets take the financial incentive away

"If I had a few spare billion, could you explain exactly how I would go about perverting a scientific consensus?"

If you had a few spare billion - like, say, off the top of my head, the fossil fuel industry - you could "pervert" the scientific consensus - or even just change it - by the simple method of providing funding to groups of scientists to produce hard, undeniable science, independent of the current political elite. In no time at all, your true climate science - which would be completely independent, remember, of the horribly biased, political-gravy-train-funded nonsense produced by the so-called "scientists" of the "consensus" - would fill the journals. People would soon see that the "scientific consensus" was clearly completely fabricated by those fat-cat "scientists" and their left-wing paymasters.

Come to think of it - why haven't those saintly oil executives already done this?

[Jeremy Chatfield]

Re: Then lets take the financial incentive away

IIRC there is a strong body of evidence, inspected in court, that tobacco companies managed scientific evidence about nicotine and the damage that smoking causes. Scientists who found the data equivocal got funds from various "philanthropic" organisations funded discreetly by tobacco companies. Public pressure groups in favour of smoking were set up and indirectly funded by tobacco money.

Given a few billion, you can find ways to slow down peer-reviewed science, get scientists talking in the media about the lack of data, or questioning the basis on which the data was collected, etc. And you can stimulate public debate quoting the scientists in your camp, to generate pressure to remove funding from the various institutes of health and Universities that had scientists who didn't favour your views.

Despite which, most scientists engaged in the research found that smoking was damaging and nicotine addiction was part of the reason that smokers continued to smoke. The smoking lobbyists did slow the eventual impact, the business did make profits in the extra years it won from this tactic (which was itself documented by tobacco companies and revealed in court), and the courts eventually fined them loadsamoney. And you still find people arguing that smoking is non-addictive and that it is harmless and just a way for governments to raise taxes, and that no business would damage its' own consumers. This is case where shorter term interests in financial performance overwhelmed ethics and longer term interests, and deniers were influential in slowing the whole thing down.

And the whole "they're paid they must be lying" meme is probably because of some bad economics - you know that "science" which makes assumptions that it then uses as if it was data? The core of much modern economic thinking is that humans are rational actors. It's an assumption, not a truth. People are emotional creatures. Ask anyone in marketing and their main daily activity is to get people to use emotional judgements when that sells, or to to try and engage their rational selves when that sells better. Every day, marketeers disprove the idea that humans are rational and make rational decisions. But it is still the big idea that "everyone knows" from economics. The point of science is to create a process to subject flawed human opinion to some rules that make the opinions speak less than reality. It's slow, painful and argumentative, but its the best approach humans have developed so far.

[jsam]

Re: Then lets take the financial incentive away

You mean don't pay scientists? Do you include doctors in that? How about geologists looking for oil? Are you paid to do anything constructive?

[Mad Mike]

Re: Here we have

The reference for the position is the emails etc. from the University of East Anglia. There's a source for you. Effectively, they show they refused to release data to outside scrutiny and admitted playing down other interpretations etc. to further their case. Guess where a load of grant money went!!

As I explained earlier, without grant money, the scientists are made redundant and therefore no grant, no personal salary. My sisters been there and done it. You can print figures like $27trillion all you like, but where's your reference for that? Where's your reference to $420billion subsidy? An interesting take on the word subsidy?

The reality is, the fossil fuel companies actually like climate changes. It's good for them. No technologies being proposed so far are going to reduce consumption in the slightest and the constantly increasing taxation (caused by the climate change furore) hides their profits etc. and makes them less of a target. You may notice that none of them are particularly fighting the climate changes agenda with their PR departments. If anything that could possibly work well and threaten their market comes up, they simply buy it and then leave it to rot or make it into another profit stream. Simple. They don't loose out of any of this.

'They don't get a penny of the fabled grant money themselves - that goes towards buying sattelites and radio sondes etc.'

I'm reliably informed by my sister that in the area of genetic research (and she tells me scientific research in general), this is not true and that without grants, her salary disappears rather quickly. The grant goes to the university normally and through them to her salary...not direct.

As I said in another post, people just need to go with climate change and stop fighting it all the time. We can learn a lot from the past, including this. One of the things that made humans so successful is our ability to change and adapt.

[John Stirling]

Re: Here we have

Disclosure: I think AGW (anthropic global warming) is probably real. I think the solution with be geo-engineering rather than going back to an agrarian culture, or reducing population by 40%.

There is money talking on both sides. The AGW mob have (generally ) more dedicated zealots who lie because they care. The non AGW mob have more money, and more willingness to defend the money.

I think characterising the AGW lot as money grubbing because they are paid is an ad hominem attack which reflects more on how the attacker views the world than those they are attacking. However some of the AGW lot are crap scientists despite making their living doing that, because they 'interpret' data which is of insufficient quality and quantity to be reliably interpreted, and make unwarranted (not necessarily incorrect, but insufficiently robust) assertions.

That the issue is 'nothing less than crucial to the future of humanity' is completely irrelevant. That humanity finds it perfectly sensible to take a 'precautionary principle' approach to genetic modification, and yet finds nothing weird about conducting a global experiment on the very habitat we need is simply an example of why we are all such interesting conversationalists, and generally crap logicians.

To address Mad Mike's point that I am answering - whilst at the same time making my own point about the quality of the debate;

You attack the previous poster for quoting numbers without references, and then without references say 'yeah, but they don't care anyway' - in your opinion. At least the numbers are checkable (or uncheckable - in which case call BS) - whereas your assertion that power companies are unthreatened by tax rises and AGW furore is simply that, an assertion, and frankly not a very credible one.

Your sister may be an excellent scientist, and she may be well aware of her terms of employment, but that is purely empirical data with no reference point. Again, useless for furthering debate.

Finally - my own assertions are entirely opinion (except when they aren't), and I have done no fact checking whatsoever, but at least I already know this, and won't get upset when someone (hopefully) points it out.

[Mad Mike]

Re: Here we have

@John Stirling.

I work for a power company in the UK. They are making large amounts of money out of man made global warming (as are most). I don't know specifically about the oil industry (for instance), but the lack of their PR departments going into overdrive suggests they either don't care (and don't see it as an issue) or don't believe there is anything they can do to stop (unlikely with their budgets). So, the former is suggested. I know what's happening in my company and know what's happening in most of the other UK power companies. The tax rises actually provide them with more profit as they are used to subsidise things like wind farms etc. which make huge profits whilst delivering relatively little power and are wholely uneconomic without subsify. So, the companies don't care about the tax rises, as they tend to be the ultimate recipient!!

Yes, I don't have empirical evidence for everyone, or a survey etc. of scientists, but I do have someone who knows from a major UK university (old school university, not new school) and therefore have considerably more knowledge and backing than the completely unbacked assertions made by the person I was responding to. I wasn't trying to be 100% scientific, but simply giving a far more educated angle.

[Some Beggar]

Re: Here we have

@Mad Mike

Hahahaha. That's the weakest argument from authority I've ever seen. You work for a power company and you know somebody who works at a university. Brilliant.

The concensus amongst physicists is that faster than light travel is impossible but I once worked with a bloke who had a minor speaking role in Star Wars so I know better.

[Anonymous Coward]

AGW->more moisture in the air->more snow->more glacier

also,

AGW->more heat->less glacier

Heads I win...

[John Stirling]

Re: AGW->more moisture in the air->more snow->more glacier

ya, because doubling rainfall, and increasing the temperature at 15,000 ft from -40 c to -30 c would cause much melting.... not.

[PyLETS]

Re: AGW->more moisture in the air->more snow->more glacier

Indeed having a warmer moister world will lead to more high altitude ice. It also means low altitude ice melts and flows faster. The global sea level depends upon the amount of ice held and stability of ice sheets in the Western Antarctic as the rest of world ice doesn't add up to much in comparison. It's also possible that AGW threatens reductions of sea level, with massive costs dredging in order to keep existing ports operational. For most places in the short-medium term whether sea levels rise or fall will probably be dominated by local plate tectonic movements, determining whether land locally is rising or falling.

[lumpaywk]

This has been known for years

This has been known for years its just someone actually proved the trust fund grant grabbers wrong!!! They know there is not a problem but being told there is creates large sums of cash. Its easy to manipulate people with this sort of propiganda. How many people have seen taxes go up for "green reasons". its the same as drilling for oil they claim there is a shortage and there is issues getting it out and thats why they "are forced" to up prices yet somehoe every year make record profits again! the best bit is because its so easy to fool people if you speak out and say the truth you get branded a consumer pig that does not care for the plannet when in reality 99% of the eco options do more damage ie hybrid cars and solar panels that are destroying the earth. Its about time the world open there eyes and stop eating up the crap we get force fed. The best bit is they always reply well you can see it happening, really can you cos you didnt did you now f off.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: This has been known for years

Now try saying that in a Vicky Pollard voice

[Some Beggar]

Re: This has been known for years

... and breathe.

[Anigel]

The models say the glaciers are melting therefore nature is wrong and the models are right. Don't let facts get in the way of a pay check /sarc

[Mad Mike]

Look at history (geological that is)

In all this, you simply have to look at history. Areas of the world change over geologic time and have done forever. There have been both warmer and colder times (whether global or local). There have been times with more rain and less rain. There has been more CO2 in the air and less etc.etc. What we're seeing here has all happened before and will happen again in the future. Climate change (in general) is perfectly normal and part of the natural cycle for the Earth as has been shown for millions of years. Nothing to see here.

Used to be that civilisations knew this and simply adapted. Water levels rise a bit, move inland some (hence evidence of civilisations found underwater). Rain levels go down and land becomes desert.......move. etc.etc.etc.

Now, two things have happened. Firstly, people no longer want to adapt and want everything to stay the same. Well, stop living in a fantasy land and get real. We're just beginning to understand it in this country. They've stopped trying to defend all the tiny bits of land threatened by the sea and are instead moving people. Not a lot, but in a few areas. You can try and fight nature, but you'll never succeed. So, people have to simply realise they need to adapt and move etc.

Secondly, politicians have become involved. A politicians fundamental job in this country is to control people and take as much money from taxpayers as possible and spend it as they will. Every scientific scare story in history has been used by them to justify tax rises and changes etc. Lead in petrol, remove it. Unfortunately, unleaded has more benzene. Lead will reduce your intelligence over a long period. Benzene just gives you cancer!! That was a result.....not.

Climate change.......just blame humans. Then, a whole raft of ideas and taxes become available. Any fuel that is burnt is the work of the devil and must be taxed to the hilt. Smart meters will no proven point are foisted on everyone. Each has a big kill switch......control. CFL lighting, which is horrible, is forced upon everyone. Climate change is used to justify so many controls and taxes it defies belief. Yet, we could simply change with it.

[Leslie Graham]

Re: Look at history (geological that is)

"...There has been more CO2 in the air and less etc.etc. What we're seeing here has all happened before..."

There has never been this high level of CO2 in the atmosphere in the history of human evolution.

Last time it was this high the planet was so hot it was unfit for human habitation.

The climate doesn't care where the CO2 comes from. Whether it's because of a natural Milankovitch Cycle thawing the permafrost or humans burning 29 billion tons of fossil fuels per year. It heats up just the same.

You're right - it's all happened before - over and over again.

CO2 levels go up - so does the global temperature. Every damn time so far.

What makes you think it isn't going to happen this time?

Peer-reviewed science papers only please.

By the way - the last time the temperature changed at one thousandth of the speed it is changing now there was a mass extinction of 90% of all life on Earth. On the land and in the oceans.

Nature doesn't **** around and we are poking her with a stick.

[Mad Mike]

Re: Look at history (geological that is)

'There has never been this high level of CO2 in the atmosphere in the history of human evolution.'

Unscientific and irrelevant. Human history is a tiny proportion of the history of this planet and hardly geologic time.

I'm not really sure why you're asking for peer reviewed scientific papers as you haven't supplied any to date either!! You seem to expect others to provide a higher level of proof than you're willing to provide yourself!!

Try looking here:-

http://www.grida.no/graphicslib/detail/temperature-and-co2-concentration-in-the-atmosphere-over-the-past-400-000-years_25ae

This shows temperatures and CO2 concentrations over a few hundred thousand years from the Vostok ice core. It shows a -9 to +4 (approx) change from current for the extremes. It also shows that more recently, the temperature isn't peaking as previous spikes would suggest.

However, as I said in all this, humans simply need to use their ability to adapt. By the way, which CO2 and temperature change are you referring to that wiped out 90% of all life on earth?

Peer-reviewed scientific papers only now please.

[tgm]

Re: Look at history (geological that is)

@Mad Mike,

"However, as I said in all this, humans simply need to use their ability to adapt".

I'm all for adapting in terms of effect (rising temp., sea levels etc). I'm less inclined to "adapt" in the *perceived* cause (CO2). I'd like to go for a walk in the lake district without myself and my dog needing to wear an oxygen mask.

I think it's inevitable we'll need to adapt - and I think everyone knows that if AWG is true, then we've already gone past the point of not adapting anyway. But at the same time we should all be doing everything we can to ensure we create the cleanest energy possible, reduce the amount of rubbish we dump into landfill, and generally all try to "do our bit". If not for the planet (or to stop/reduce the speed of global warming), then for our own well-being and enjoyment of our natural spaces.

We need to get past this "it's all a hoax!", or "see, told you so, we're all f**ked!", and start thinking about adapting (because either climate change is happening because it's influenced by human activity OR its a natural cycle that will happen anyway), and creating clean energy (because regardless of whether climate change is influenced by human activity or not, we're going to run out of fossil fuels eventually anyway).

[Mad Mike]

Re: Look at history (geological that is)

@tgm

I agree we should all try and reduce our impact on the planet. That can never be a bad thing, but we're going about it in completely the wrong way due to money. Wind farms never will remove our need for fossil fuels. We'd simply need too many and they are too unreliable. Other technologies are far better. Wave and tidal power. Harder to achieve, but far better power output and above all else, reliable. Photovoltaic..........very poor return. Solar furnaces etc........much better returns and more practical. We're currently running headlong towards primarily windfarms, but we'd actually be a lot better off burning fossil fuels for a few more years, perfecting wave and tidal etc. and then getting rid of fossil fuels (for power generation at least), altogether. But the climate change furore causes everything to be done tactically rather than strategically. All wind generated electricity needs another form (normally fossil and nuclear) backing it up. Expensive and very wasteful. Do you know how much electricity was produced by wind farms during the last couple of cold snaps (as in significant snow on the ground over the UK). Bugger all!!

[Local Group]

Re: Look at history (geological that is)

"humans simply need to use their ability to adapt."

To adapt, perchance to evolve; Ay, there's the rub,

For in that evolution and change, what warts may come,

When we have shuffled off these 46 chromosomes,

Must give us pause. Lest we become most lazar-like,

With vile and loathsome crust, on all our smooth bodies..

[NomNomNom]

Re: Look at history (geological that is)

"Unscientific and irrelevant. Human history is a tiny proportion of the history of this planet and hardly geologic time."

You can't turn round and berate someone for pointing out that the CO2 changes are not just unprecedented in human history, but even in human evolution, when you were the one to raise human history in the first place. You claimed: "Used to be that civilisations knew this and simply adapted. Water levels rise a bit, move inland some (hence evidence of civilisations found underwater). Rain levels go down and land becomes desert.......move. etc.etc.etc.""

In fact the CO2 changes are not just unprecedented in the timespan of human evolution, they may indeed be unprecedented in earth's history. When has the Earth faced a doubling of CO2 in just 3 centuries? There is no known past example of it doing so. This very well may be the first time it ever has happened. That's a far cry from your claim that "What we're seeing here has all happened before and will happen again in the future...Nothing to see here."

There is also another reason why the situation is unique and cannot be compared to the past so easily: we have 7 billion humans on the planet now and a huge amount of infrastructure built up in position of current climate, such as hundreds of cities near sea level.

The Earth's climate has been reasonably stable for the past 10,000 years. The real big climate changes happened before that. That's before civilization. I know correlation doesn't equal correlation but you have to wonder if the timing of the emergence of civilization and an unusually stable period in terms of climate might be related, and if so what that would mean to suddenly enter such a rapid and large climate change for effectively the first time in human history.

Pre-history was nomadic peoples. Who knows what hellish changes they lived through in terms of climate change. The mere fact they survived hardly tells us anything.

[Mad Mike]

Re: Look at history (geological that is)

@NomNomNom.

I simply said that civilisations moved when the climate changed. It wasn't a reference specifically to CO2, but in general for all climate change and indeed geological change. If a volcano starts erupting, do you try to stop it, or simply move the people elsewhere?

CO2 levels have been much higher in the past. Rate of change is questionable as accurate enough data to identify short term changes cannot be provided by ice cores etc. which identify averages over hundreds or thousands of years. So, rate change is complete unknowable in the past, except the very recent past. You cannot say that because there are no known examples in the past that it cannot therefore have happened when the scientific methods to determine it don't work for the vast majority of earth history. Indeed, the ice cores (one method) only go back a relatively short period of time as the poles have spent more time (geologically speaking) without ice than with!! Our current ice covered poles are actually the exception rather than the norm in that respect. That's why they think there's a lot of oil under the Antarctic......it used to be tropical rainforest!!

Yes, there are 7 billion humans on the planet now and someday someone will have to realise that numbers cannot increase forever. Is the practical limit 14billion, 10billion, maybe 5billion, maybe fewer? We have to accept that population HAS to be limited at some point and that may even be lower than the current number. The cities near the sea can be rebuilt elsewhere. The money being poured one way or another into fighting climate change would easily pay for a few hundred to be moved. Ask China who build cities and move populations all the time.

10,000 years is an irrelevant timescale except to humans. The climate has been stable for periods of a 100,000 years or even millions of years in geological past. Saying that the real big climate changes happened before that rather denies that they're happening now, or is the current one not really big? Climate changes will occur (big and small) as long as the earth exists for a whole load of reasons. The Sun itself will change output continuously over time (and that will affect it) and will ultimately (probably) swell into a red giant and burn the earth to a frazzle. That's a big climate change. Maybe billions of years in the future. The point is, no eco system and no climate ever stands still.

Yes, pre-history was nomadic people and they probably did live through hellish times. What does it tell us? They were able to adapt in various ways to stay alive. They moved, over time their genetic makeup and traits changed etc.etc. That's what it tells us.

[NomNomNom]

Re: Look at history (geological that is)

"I simply said that civilisations moved when the climate changed"

and I am simply saying that civilizations have never had to cope with a proper climate change. all the climate changes since human civilization have been relatively minor.

"Rate of change is questionable as accurate enough data to identify short term changes cannot be provided by ice cores etc. . which identify averages over hundreds or thousands of years."

That's good enough resolution to detect such spikes which take thousands of years to dissipate. Also this isn't dependent on ice cores anyway. A CO2 spike was identified 55 million years ago that took place over a few thousand years. But still slower than the current rate of increase.

Not only is there no evidence for a CO2 jump this fast there is also no known natural mechanism for one to occur short of epic level stuff like a catastrophic volcanic mega eruption.

"They were able to adapt in various ways to stay alive. They moved, over time their genetic makeup and traits changed etc.etc."

So if 3 billion out of 7 billion humans die is that the kind of acceptable "nothing to see here", "it's happened before" kind of thing you are envisioning? I mean if you take a very distant view it is truely irrelevant because as long as 4 billion survive the human race survives and has "adapted"

[Armando 123]

Re: Look at history (geological that is)

"CO2 levels go up - so does the global temperature. Every damn time so far."

I know there's a correlation, but I thought research had shown that CO2 lagged warming ... a hell of a trick if it caused warming.

[Bob 18]

Re: Look at history (geological that is)

"There have been both warmer and colder times (whether global or local). There have been times with more rain and less rain. There has been more CO2 in the air and less etc.etc. What we're seeing here has all happened before and will happen again in the future. Climate change (in general) is perfectly normal and part of the natural cycle for the Earth as has been shown for millions of years. "

As was pointed out, "There has never been this high level of CO2 in the atmosphere in the history of human evolution." That means, it is not clear that the biosphere will be able to sustain 7 billion people as the climate shifts far more rapidly than many species can adapt.

Another problem with this argument is that the last time CO2 levels were really high and the Earth was really warm, the sun was 10% dimmer than it is today. We need lower CO2 levels now than in the distant past in order to just maintain the SAME climate.

[Mad Mike]

Re: Look at history (geological that is)

@Bob 18.

Yes, not in human history, but we have to get over this idea that humans have to survive. We don't and nature knows it. Do we know if the biosphere can actually support 7billion people at the moment? What about the famines etc. Maybe nature is trying to tell us something. There has to be a limit somewhere and it could be anything, including less than 7billion.

The last time CO2 levels were really high, the Earth was a few degress (on average warmer) and the sun was 10% dimmer. OK. So, what are you going to do when the sub becomes 10% brighter in the future? Go and fix the sun or adapt? I would suggest the former is a little difficult, in which case, it leaves only one option!!

[The Original Cactus]

Re: Look at history (geological that is)

"What we're seeing here has all happened before and will happen again in the future."

Are you saying the Cylons are causing climate change?

[kryptonaut]

Reading around a bit...

I think perhaps Lewis has not quite given us the whole picture. This article ought to be titled 'Some Himalayan* glaciers might posibly be gaining a small amount of weight"

*Well, near enough anyway.

From the summary of the original scientific article:

"The globally averaged mass balance of glaciers and ice caps is negative. An anomalous gain of mass has been suggested for the Karakoram glaciers [...] Here, we calculate the regional mass balance of glaciers in the central Karakoram between 1999 and 2008, based on the difference between two digital elevation models. We find a highly heterogeneous spatial pattern of changes in glacier elevation [...] The regional mass balance is just positive at +0.11±0.22 m yr−1 water equivalent [...] Our measurements confirm an anomalous mass balance in the Karakoram region and indicate that the contribution of Karakoram glaciers to sea-level rise was −0.01 mm yr−1 for the period from 1999 to 2008, 0.05 mm yr−1 lower than suggested before."

Or, paraphrasing somewhat, "Ice in general is melting faster than it is forming. Of course it's not melting absolutely everywhere, and in a particular area of the Karakorum region some difficult measurements and calculations indicate that on average glaciers appear to be growing slightly. Although they could in fact be shrinking."

I'd recommend reading the BBC article for a more balanced viewpoint:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17701677

[diodesign]

Re: Is there any point me posting any clarifications on yet another disingenuous knobwit blog?

I think someone hit a nerve.

C.

[Eddie Edwards]

Re: Is there any point me posting any clarifications on yet another disingenuous knobwit blog?

Ah, the Samantha Brick come-back. Nicely played.

[Some Beggar]

Re: Is there any point me posting any clarifications on yet another disingenuous knobwit blog?

"I think someone hit a nerve."

Well at least one of the staffers is brace enough to admit that Lewis is a troll. Thanks.

[diodesign]

Re: Re: Is there any point me posting any clarifications on yet another disingenuous knobwit blog?

I was referring to you.

C.

[Some Beggar]

Re: Is there any point me posting any clarifications on yet another disingenuous knobwit blog?

... says the Mod with the bee in his bonnet.

[daveje]

Some things never change, and the lack of critical thinking exhibited by Lewis Page in his typically breathless anti-science reporting is one of them.

The Himalayas are around 1million km2. According to Lewis, the area surveyed in the article is only 5,615 km2, which by my reckoning is around half of one percent. So much for Lewis's "vast region"...

[hplasm]

He does-

report on a lot of 'anti-science'.

Mainly about AGW.

[PhilipN]

Confused of cricklewood

How do the glaciers thicken, pray tell, when the level of precipitation is about the same as the Sahara?

Best I can imagine is moisture laden air condensing on to the glacier surface.

[Andy Kay]

Hmmm, I'm beginning to see a trend

5 days ago:

Amount of ice in Bering Sea reaches all-time record

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04/11/bering_sea_ice_cover/

Just saying...

[Leslie Graham]

Re: Hmmm, I'm beginning to see a trend

If you want to see a trend in the Arctic Ice don't pick one month's extent data in one small part of the Arctic.

That just makes you look like a denier.

Instead look at the TREND. The trend - and this is just a simply matter of measuring it - is a rapid retreat in all Arctic regions in extent, area, volume and age.

By the way - the thin scattered slush in the Bering Sea that the denier-blogs are peeing in their pants over has largely been blown out there or formed in the last few weeks and will be entirely gone by June. Anyone with even a basic interest in the subject is well aware of this.

What is important is the shocking decline in the volume of ice and the disapearance of almost all of the old ice.

It's disapearing some 40 years ahead of the IPCC worst case projections of only a decade ago.

That's the problem with these "uncertainties" the ...er..."skepticks"... like to crow about. They can work both ways as we are now seeing.

[Armando 123]

Not a one dimensional problem

Glaciers depend on two things: moisture and cold. I wonder if things have been drier recently (I think that was what some research on Kilamanjaro showed) and now they're getting wetter.

[John A Blackley]

Do we need new scientists?

The ones we have don't appear very convincing.

[Battsman]

Re: Do we need new scientists?

If you are a layman and 99% of the scientists in a particular field support a particular position, but you continue to remain unconvinced... well, I don't think it is new scientists that you need.

[Mad Mike]

Re: Do we need new scientists?

History shows not. In the 70s, 99% of scientists reckoned we were entering an ice age!!

Truth is, nobody knows, least of all scientists. The atmosphere, climate and geology are so complicated that we're only scratching the surface and don't really have a clue. Scientists reckon they know the answers, but ask them for a weather forecast for tomorrow and the real head scratching can begin.

[Andrew Alan McKenzie]

Re: Do we need new scientists?

Never let facts get in the way of memes. There were some stories in the 1970s about a new ice age - but the bias towards a prediction of cooling was more a media artifact. A systematic survey of papers published at the time has about 10% of scientists predicting cooling, 60% warming and 30% neutral.

But even if scientists had predicted a new ice age 40 years ago, that wouldn't really invalidate modern day climate science, any more than Bill Gates saying '640K ought to be enough for anybody' means that all computer science is invalid (and yes - I know he didn't say it - just like the climate scientists didn't predict an ice age!)

[Battsman]

Re: Do we need new scientists?

Your weather forecast argument is well known and easily demonstrably false argument because climatology and weather forecasting are only tenuously related. Climatology is a macro scale science and weather forecasting is a micro scale science. The impact of minute changes on a weather predicition can be large (The layman's butterfly/chaos effect), but small changes in a microclimate aren't necessarily that important in a macro scale analysis because it is averaged in with so much other information. That is the reason that Larry is so disingenious in his play up of this particular article. The surface area being studied is a micro environment within even just the himlalayas...

Oh and regarding your 70s statement. Also demonstrably false.... Here's a quote easily found via ye' ole' Google.

"Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends."

Or to put it another way, as the science of climatology, the data available, and associated computing power has advanced climate scientists have evolved their perspectives into a general agreement vs. a diversity of positions 30 years ago. And if your math is a litlte rusty.. 7 out of a sample set of 71 papers is just under 10% in active support of cooling. Denialists make a lot of arguments, some of them are valid and constructive. The "in the 70s climatologists believed in global cooling" argument is neither.

[Some Beggar]

Re: Do we need new scientists?

@Mad Mike

Unmitigated twaddle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_glaciation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

[Mad Mike]

Re: Do we need new scientists?

'@Mad Mike

Unmitigated twaddle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_glaciation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling'

Really? I was not talking about reality, but about what scientists were saying in the 70s. They were predicting an iceage and its in the history books. Read about it. I remember as I was about at the time, so I know it isn't unmitigated twaddle.

[Some Beggar]

Re: Do we need new scientists?

"Read about it."

I just gave you the link to read about it.

[Michael M]

Re: Do we need new scientists?

"History shows not. In the 70s, 99% of scientists reckoned we were entering an ice age!!"

Lewis presents the facts in a manner best suited to forward his own views - you however seem content to out-and-out make stuff up. 99%?

[Mad Mike]

Re: Do we need new scientists?

Are you denying that scientists in the 70s predicted an iceage? If so, you need to look at history books. The 99% is simply a reference to someone else quoting 99% as in faviour of man made global warming in this article. There were certainly as many people in favour of an iceage in the 70s as in favour of man made global warming now.

So, nothing being made up here.

[Some Beggar]

Re: Do we need new scientists?

"There were certainly as many people in favour of an iceage in the 70s as in favour of man made global warming now."

More complete twaddle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

I can keep posting this until you learn how to click and read.

[John A Blackley]

Re: Do we need new scientists?

I would say that depends on which 99% of all scientists one listens to.

[Some Beggar]

Re: Do we need new scientists?

There's only one foolproof solution when all the experts say something that you don't like and only Joe Stalin has ever managed to pull it off with any success.

[Battsman]

What I love...

"There are some problems with your post.

The post is required, and must contain letters."

OK, the above isn't actually what I love, but it does make me snicker a little. What I love is that I've done some reading (unrelated to this article) on the preparation that a number of northern hemisphere militaries have been making in preparation of a warmer arctic and the likely oil & gas races to come as the region warms. Now obviously, that isn't a "proof" that the Artic region actually is warming. However, I'll call it a "disproof" of a vast government conspiracy to charge offset taxes for no reason. It would appear that said goverments actually believe the climate change data...

Of course if the warming data was actually accurate, I suspect that would hardly be an inconvenient truth for our dear author - his rabid fanatacism would appear to allow him to cherry pick and gloss over details at will for the proof of his point. Besides, actual contribution to the discussion would likely require someone with a potentially more netural viewpoint on this topic and who would actually expect that from a purported journalist.

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it too late to point out

The Karakoram aren't actually in the Himalayas?

[Charlie Clark]

Nice try

But also Every year less ice in Canada. Admittedly entirely anecdotal but indicative of some kind of, er, climate change. At least for a part of Canada.

[Armando 123]

Re: Nice try

I thought that was caused by Global Drying.

[strum]

Typically dishonest Page

One small area of this region shows a trend-breaking anomaly, and the denialist Reg leaps upon it.

Shame on you.

[Anonymous Coward]

Scientific conspiracy?

I'm mystified by the angle that man-mad global warming is a scientific conspiracy. If it is, what is the goal of the conspiracy and who benefits?

If there are a significant number of corrupt scientists, I'm sure they could get more money from the oil industry (to name just one source) and you'd therefore expect the consensus to be against man-made global warming.

Ergo, most scientists are not corrupt. (Or, they are corrupt, but not very good at it).

[Some Beggar]

Re: Scientific conspiracy?

Gravy train Millionaire Al Gore Research Grants Subsidy Conspiracy Taxes taxes taxes gravy gravy train train train.

Or sutin.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm amazed that people still believe Al Gore's bullshit.

The other day I was in town when some bloke waylaid me, showed me some brochures and asked me if I would like to donate to some conservation fund. While he blabbed on, I flipped through the brochure and on one page I saw the icon for 'Earth Hour', with the globe and the number 60.

I said I don't believe in Al Gore's nonsense, and bade him farewell.

Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming is a hoax. CO2 does not affect climate change. Your puny efforts to switch off lights for an hour will do feck all to save the planet, but it does help 'raise awareness'... of what fad-chasing, unthinking simpletons you are.

Listen to George Carlin. The planet will still be here long after we humans are extinct. We can't save ourselves, much less the planet.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks, Lewis.....

Now the Ice Pirates know where to plunder!!

There are going to be few homeless families of Yetis now, thanks to you!!

[Anonymous John]

"mystifying climate scientists who had thought the planet's "third pole" to be melting."

FTFY

"mystifying climate scientists who had wanted the planet's "third pole" to be melting."

[Bob 18]

The Real Science

Yet another cherry-picked fact, mis-represented by Lewis Page in support of a pre-determined agenda. There is no debate that glaciers worldwide are retreating at an alarming rate: this is immediately evident from numerous before-and-after photos.

The Himalayan glaciers are remote, and not so well studied because they are remote and hard to access. The recent data showing that they are not currently shrinking is therefore incredibly valuable. We can speculate why, of course, but that doesn't negate the well established fact that glaciers worldwide are retreating at an alarming rate.

Mass balance of a glacier is a complex interplay between many factors, including temperature and snowfall. Increased snowfall could cause glaciers to advance even in the face of warmer climate. Increased precipitation (thus snowfall) is the Himilayas could easily be caused by a warmer Indian Ocean: more water evaporates, so more snow falls in the mountains.

Speculation aside, more work is require to get the story on what's going on here. It's interesting science. But that does not negate the main story of glacial retreat, or anthropogenic climate change, or what we might need to do about it.

[David Robinson 2]

Of all the people that have written on this subject I have seen no-one that has challenged the facts about Co2 in the atmosphere. I have taken samples for over ten years and found a consistent 311 ppm. Now dont bother to tell me I dont know what I am doing a I have more years experience of Co2 analysis than most of the contributors here have lived. There is nothing difficult about this procedure. The equipment is similar to that used in nuclear submarines and for the same purpose, to see how much of the gas is in the atmosphere. If you are so convinced that Co2 is high the go buy yourself some equipment (not all that dear) and test for youself,...if you are not afraid of finding something that you don't like. So put up or shut up.

Dave

[Knaws]

Himalayan Glsciers

They are so much more fun than those boring old ice caps. Their ironic sense of humor gets me every time.