Working to cope with climate change

[bobgnote]

Two things are obvious from your post:

1. You still haven't pointed to a single experiment that demonstrates any of what you've described. How much will pH drop be adding 120PPM CO2 to the atmosphere? Do they make numbers that small? Can you give us a ball park estimate?

2. You need to come to terms with your homosexuality. It's 2012. It's OK for you to come out

1. I don't have the lab, to do an experiment, which would show exactly what you ask. The acid is present, it has cold-water affinity, and it is killing animals. Since you are an insincere queer, who has AIDS-denial and no fear of HIV and no fear of global warming or acidification, you claim 120 ppm CO2 is somehow an experiment we all have to go out and do for you, when this has to be set up, to show exchange from atmosphere to ocean to acid, and I don't have that, and you're a queer on beer, who a day later is ignoring how Trakar spelled out an experiment for you, you punk weasel, so you forgot, anyway;

2. Eat your own queer shit and die, punk. You and your wingpunks won't come to grips with the bottom line of warming or acidification, which is the planet is sick, we are losing species, and you think your tinfoil-hat media indicates the planet is not in trouble, with exactly the same lies tricks told, by dead queers, who were shooting speed and having unprotected sex, while pushing their dose, all the way to full-blown AIDS;

3. You and your wingpunks' pants are on fire, in traffic. You dose-pushing geek from a Log Cabin closet, don't forget to eat your own queer shit and die! To deny global warming and cumulative human stewardship problems, ass-creep neo-cons are all over the message boards, flaming out their butts. Lie some more, queer assholes.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Your babbling a bunch of nonsense about bears and volcanoes and in general using jargon that makes it apparent you are more of a blog expert than a scientific one.

AGW has nothing to do with science. This is religion, not science.

Science is a process of discovery and refinement. In science, questioning is critical. Something like AGW, where questioning of dogma is met with harsh penalty is religion, where the clergy fears anyone looking too closely.

Let's face it, Mann, Jones, Gore, and Rajendra Pachauri are PROVEN frauds, yet what your church bases your claims on are driven by these men. No wonder those who question the church find that they cannot be published and are fired from jobs - the clergy knows that legitimate science reputes what the church teaches, rather than supports it.

So why would I debate AGW? To convince you that it's a fraud? You already know it's a fraud, and you don't care. So like the JW's and Scientologists, you deserve and get only derision from me.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The part about 'papist wingnut' really got you going.

It's possible that Catholicism is just as stupid as the AGW cult, but no one is making laws based on Catholic doctrine, so it isn't a concern to me.

You refer to Scientology, you drop 'cult' re AGW, I suppose, and you are suspected of a kind of baptism.

Scientology may not be quite as nutty as the AGW morons, but they are pretty fucked up.

Have you learned to fuck yourself, for Jesus?

Why would a composite mythological figure want someone to fuck themselves?

Of course, if you were rational, you wouldn't follow the AGW cult.

You just Can't Understand Normal Thought...

Have you learned to bend over, for Father Horn-dog? What's your religion, if it isn't from St.Wingnut's miserable catechism? Screw you, for not posting even one link, while taking up half a page, with your huffing and puffing.

I understand that you are weak of mind, it's why you follow a cult. While your cult teaches that those who deny are heretics teaching strange faiths, the truth is that most of us would prefer rational inquiry based on demonstrable fact and sound experimentation.

It's called "science," you really wouldn't understand.

You sure do like to elaborately segment quotes, but you fail to offer any links, to event or study reports. Phil Jones is not a bad reference, but you merely rant, since you are really fucking stupid. So quote in quote in quote and make farty replies, asshole.

Phil Jones is a proven fraud - and you are a drooling moron licking the diarehha from his anus as is so typical of your stupid cult.

You going out tonight to burn down the lab of some heretic denier who found evidence of yet more fraud by your church?

{WASHINGTON - Five glaring errors were discovered in one paragraph of the world's most authoritative report on global warming, forcing the Nobel Prize-winning panel of climate scientists who wrote it to apologize and promise to be more careful. The errors are in a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.N.-affiliated body. All the mistakes appear in a subsection that suggests glaciers in the Himalayas could melt away by the year 2035 - hundreds of years earlier than the data actually indicates. The year 2350 apparently was transposed as 2035. }
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=5237de54-802a-23ad-428d-bf84f5695d1b

{...more than 50 per cent of observed glaciers in the Karakoram region in the northwestern Himalaya are advancing or stable.
"Our study shows that there is no uniform response of Himalayan glaciers to climate change and highlights the importance of debris cover for understanding glacier retreat, an effect that has so far been neglected in predictions of future water availability or global sea level," the authors concluded.
Dr Bookhagen said their report had shown "there is no stereotypical Himalayan glacier" in contrast to the UN's climate change report which, he said, "lumps all Himalayan glaciers together."
Dr Pachauri, head of the Nobel prize-winning UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has remained silent on the matter since he was forced to admit his report's claim that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 was an error and had not been sourced from a peer-reviewed scientific journal. It came from a World Wildlife Fund report.
He angered India's environment minister and the country's leading glaciologist when he attacked those who questioned his claim as purveyors of "voodoo science".
The environment Minister Jairam Ramesh had cited research indicating some Himalayan glaciers were advancing in the face of the UN's claim.}

<daveinboca>

Your religion is a fucking fraud, we all know it.

 

[flacaltenn]

<OopieDoo>

I'm curious - do you even realize that you haven't provided evidence of any falisified data?

Don't need to. I ASSUME i'm talking to someone who's been following the GW debate from BOTH a scientific and social perspective. Am I WRONG about that Oopiedoo?


<OopieDoo>

The GH effect is caused by radiation on its way OUT of the Earth's atmopshere being trapped, not on its way IN. The radiation leaving the Earth has been thermalized and does not possess the same spectra as the sun.

Not in THIS universe it doesn't.. Works both ways. Just like a greenhouse does. Maybe you need to camping in the desert and see the difference in temp between a night with clouds and a clear night.

You can't SEE infrared as heat -- but it's radiating back into the atmosphere at night. (know how night vision goggles work ooppie?) (there is a difference between heat propagation and IR prop, and BOTH are in play)

I've posted ON THIS THREAD a sample study trying to confirm the GH effect at night and in the desert (without solar irradiation and water vapor) -- and it's not getting confirmed that CO2 is the culprit.. From the chart i gave on absorption spectra, the top line is total absorption of the greenhouse. Works in either direction. And it would only take subtle shifts of solar radiation spectrum to fall into or away from those gaps in "heat retention" to change the surface temperature.

<OopieDoo>

Sorry but I'm not going to look up the studies you are referring to for you. If you want to talk about something where a scientist with a name thought of it and wrote about it in a paper that can be read and verified that would be great.


While you're at it, please tell me what your calculation is for the GH forcing due to CO2.

You don't need to look it up.. I've already posted and discussed one sample in this very thread. You either didn't read thru or you didn't know what you were looking at. Here's a hint.. I've bolded the important parts.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5390257-post229.html

So maybe oopy trying to have a real discussion on this is a waste of my time and yours. Did you even read the conclusion (and the credentials) of THAT scientist? And DON'T come back here and whine that it's just one study or scientist. I've already stated that there multiple studies of that type and this is but ONE example where AGW theory has failed.

There is probably GH forcing due to man-made CO2.. I believe it's NOT the primary of GW. Neither do I believe the current models or the dire predictions of hemmoroids and calamity DUE to the warming that we are experiencing.. Einstein didn't measure the speed of light to confirm. Einstein didn't really do any experiments. All he did was observe and ponder.

 

[bobgnote]

I understand that you are weak of mind, it's why you follow a cult. While your cult teaches that those who deny are heretics teaching strange faiths, the truth is that most of us would prefer rational inquiry based on demonstrable fact and sound experimentation.

It's called "science," you really wouldn't understand.

Phil Jones is a proven fraud - and you are a drooling moron licking the diarehha from his anus as is so typical of your stupid cult.

You going out tonight to burn down the lab of some heretic denier who found evidence of yet more fraud by your church?

{WASHINGTON - Five glaring errors were discovered in one paragraph of the world's most authoritative report on global warming, forcing the Nobel Prize-winning panel of climate scientists who wrote it to apologize and promise to be more careful. The errors are in a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.N.-affiliated body. All the mistakes appear in a subsection that suggests glaciers in the Himalayas could melt away by the year 2035 - hundreds of years earlier than the data actually indicates. The year 2350 apparently was transposed as 2035. }
.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

{...more than 50 per cent of observed glaciers in the Karakoram region in the northwestern Himalaya are advancing or stable.
"Our study shows that there is no uniform response of Himalayan glaciers to climate change and highlights the importance of debris cover for understanding glacier retreat, an effect that has so far been neglected in predictions of future water availability or global sea level," the authors concluded.
Dr Bookhagen said their report had shown "there is no stereotypical Himalayan glacier" in contrast to the UN's climate change report which, he said, "lumps all Himalayan glaciers together."
Dr Pachauri, head of the Nobel prize-winning UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has remained silent on the matter since he was forced to admit his report's claim that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 was an error and had not been sourced from a peer-reviewed scientific journal. It came from a World Wildlife Fund report.
He angered India's environment minister and the country's leading glaciologist when he attacked those who questioned his claim as purveyors of "voodoo science".
The environment Minister Jairam Ramesh had cited research indicating some Himalayan glaciers were advancing in the face of the UN's claim.}

<daveinboca>

Your religion is a fucking fraud, we all know it.

You are a miserable, punkass bullshitter. Warming is here. It's getting worse. Stupid people like you want to blame somebody for it, but fuck you, here it is, anyway.

97% of the world's glaciers are receding, CO2 is at 400 ppm in the Arctic, 350 ppm is maximum safe level, 275 ppm was 19th Century level, carbonic acidification is killing oceanic organisms, including plankton, eggs, little fish, oysters, and reefs, threatening the entire food chain, sequestered methane is issuing from heating land and sea areas, and the warming and acidification is accelerating.

You ranting peace of shit, I don't read Phil Jones, I just didn't oppose you, for dropping his name, but you are a punk, who needs to quit blowing padres and read some science. When you wipe padre-spunk off your stinking gob, ask the cleric to sock you up a post, in exchange. Get some real religion up here. Then you can fuck yourself and talk religion. Not yet.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Two things are obvious from your post:

1. You still haven't pointed to a single experiment that demonstrates any of what you've described. How much will pH drop be adding 120PPM CO2 to the atmosphere? Do they make numbers that small? Can you give us a ball park estimate?

2. You need to come to terms with your homosexuality. It's 2012. It's OK for you to come out

1. I don't have the lab, to do an experiment, which would show exactly what you ask. The acid is present, it has cold-water affinity, and it is killing animals. Since you are an insincere queer, who has AIDS-denial and no fear of HIV and no fear of global warming or acidification, you claim 120 ppm CO2 is somehow an experiment we all have to go out and do for you, when this has to be set up, to show exchange from atmosphere to ocean to acid, and I don't have that, and you're a queer on beer, who a day later is ignoring how Trakar spelled out an experiment for you, you punk weasel, so you forgot, anyway;

2. Eat your own queer shit and die, punk. You and your wingpunks won't come to grips with the bottom line of warming or acidification, which is the planet is sick, we are losing species, and you think your tinfoil-hat media indicates the planet is not in trouble, with exactly the same lies tricks told, by dead queers, who were shooting speed and having unprotected sex, while pushing their dose, all the way to full-blown AIDS;

3. You and your wingpunks' pants are on fire, in traffic. You dose-pushing geek from a Log Cabin closet, don't forget to eat your own queer shit and die! To deny global warming and cumulative human stewardship problems, ass-creep neo-cons are all over the message boards, flaming out their butts. Lie some more, queer assholes.

The planet isn't sick, you are. You are making yourself suffer needlessly by suppressing your homosexuality. Trust me, nobody cares. You could sign up for RuPaul's Drag Race and nobody here or in your life would give a crap, but you might be happier

I didn't say that YOU had to do the experiment, I just thought that with all of these colleges and universities all signed on to AGW, you'd think at least ONE of them would have done an experiment showing the expected drop in pH per increase in CO2.

How many gigatons of addition CO2 are added every year from "Manmade global warming"?

What percentage of that is absorbed by the ocean?

What percentage of the newly absorbed CO2 is converted to Carbonic acid?

What is the pH of Carbonic acid

What is the pH of the ocean?

What is the expected drop in ocean pH as a result of the newly added carbonic acid (do they make numbers that small?)

Work that out for a bit

 

[saveliberty]

Have to like the concept of CO2 allowing solar radiation into the atmosphere, but blocking it on the way out. lol

Then they jump up and down and say, but...but...there's MORE CO2 now.......... priceless

 

[Uncensored2008]

You are a miserable, punkass bullshitter.

And if you could, you would burn me at the stake as a vile heretic.

I understand exactly how you think and what you would do, I have Iran as a model of Warmer thinking.

Warming is here. It's getting worse. Stupid people like you want to blame somebody for it, but fuck you, here it is, anyway.

In 4.5 billion years, there has been only one constant to the Earth's climate, constant change.

You fuckwits with your "volcano god cult" think that the wind shifting direction is proof of Gaea becoming angry at your carbon sins.

Listen up, fuckwit - back when this same scam was pulled for the village next to the volcano, guess what? The volcano was real.

What wasn't real was the bullshit the Shaman promised. Giving him your virgin daughter so he could rape her and then murder her by throwing her in, that had no effect on whether the volcano would erupt.

You fuckwits want to sacrifice everything to the shamans, but you're way too fucking stupid to comprehend that they have no control over the climate and any "sacrifice" is just a means of enriching themselves and giving more power to the ruling caste, whom they serve.

97% of the world's glaciers are receding, CO2 is at 400 ppm in the Arctic, 350 ppm is maximum safe level, 275 ppm was 19th Century level, carbonic acidification is killing oceanic organisms, including plankton, eggs, little fish, oysters, and reefs, threatening the entire food chain, sequestered methane is issuing from heating land and sea areas, and the warming and acidification is accelerating.

AND THE LORD SHALL STRIKE DOWN...

You fucking moron.

You ranting peace of shit, I don't read Phil Jones,

You do follow his church, faithfully.

I just didn't oppose you, for dropping his name, but you are a punk, who needs to quit blowing padres and read some science. When you wipe padre-spunk off your stinking gob, ask the cleric to sock you up a post, in exchange. Get some real religion up here. Then you can fuck yourself and talk religion. Not yet.

Fuckwit, you're a stupid guy who has convinced yourself that reciting this hokey religion will make you appear wise.

What you don't grasp is that it only impresses other fuckwits.

 

[saveliberty]

The worthless bob is going on ignore.

 

[saveliberty]

Somebody want to bring their 4x4 over to my house and drive me to buy charcoal?

 

[Uncensored2008]

The worthless bob is going on ignore.

I think he's kind of fun.

The perfect example of the AGW cultists. Stupid as a stump and brainwashed to the point of rejecting any evidence that refutes his faith.

I'm encouraging him to spew his vomit.

 

[flacaltenn]

The worthless bob is going on ignore.

I think he's kind of fun.

The perfect example of the AGW cultists. Stupid as a stump and brainwashed to the point of rejecting any evidence that refutes his faith.

I'm encouraging him to spew his vomit.

I second that motion.. BobG does science like Debby does Dallas.

This notion that only the high priests of AGW care about the earth or the environment gets really sketchy. I can't tell whether Bob really cares or not. If the Garden of Eden returned, ole bob and his congregation would still be hating on everyone.. Just like I don't know whether Al Gore values the earth and the environment or his wallet..

 

[Trakar]

You have to wonder, why arent the labs and universities conducting experiments like this?

They have been done in jr. High general science demonstrations and High School level chemistry and physics classes for most of the last 50 years (where I first ran into such dmonstrations) and in variation are frequently a part of undergrad chemistry and physics classes in most community colleges and universitys across the nation.

I suspect its because adding 120 PPM CO2 does not raise temperature nor does it acidify the oceans

We don't have to rely upon suspicions, follow the course of the experiments as tens of millions of students do each year and analyze the data. So far, when the experiement is followed with the proper attention to detail, rigorous laboratory methodology, and precision in data recovery the findings are in accord with and support both CO2's GHG properties and the pH shifts in accord with the absorption of CO2 into aqueous solutions. It's not magic, it's basic science fully in accord with mainstream science understandings.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You have to wonder, why arent the labs and universities conducting experiments like this?

They have been done in jr. High general science demonstrations and High School level chemistry and physics classes for most of the last 50 years (where I first ran into such dmonstrations) and in variation are frequently a part of undergrad chemistry and physics classes in most community colleges and universitys across the nation.

I suspect its because adding 120 PPM CO2 does not raise temperature nor does it acidify the oceans

We don't have to rely upon suspicions, follow the course of the experiments as tens of millions of students do each year and analyze the data. So far, when the experiement is followed with the proper attention to detail, rigorous laboratory methodology, and precision in data recovery the findings are in accord with and support both CO2's GHG properties and the pH shifts in accord with the absorption of CO2 into aqueous solutions. It's not magic, it's basic science fully in accord with mainstream science understandings.

Actually, in all the years I've been asking I've only seen one experiment that uses a 100PPM increase in CO2. It was from Centenary College of Louisiana and I have to thank Old Rocks for finding it.

I asked OR if he had the results of the test -- he didn't.

So I called the college and spoke to one of the professors David Davies and Ernest Blakeney, (I forget which one I spoke to). He said the the other professor came up with the idea for the experiment and he seems to have disappeared. No one has seen him or heard from him.

If you have a similar experiment, please feel free to post it.

Most of the "Experiments" pump up the control container with 500,000PPM of CO2 and don't adjust for increased pressure.

 

[flacaltenn]

You have to wonder, why arent the labs and universities conducting experiments like this?

They have been done in jr. High general science demonstrations and High School level chemistry and physics classes for most of the last 50 years (where I first ran into such dmonstrations) and in variation are frequently a part of undergrad chemistry and physics classes in most community colleges and universitys across the nation.

I suspect its because adding 120 PPM CO2 does not raise temperature nor does it acidify the oceans

We don't have to rely upon suspicions, follow the course of the experiments as tens of millions of students do each year and analyze the data. So far, when the experiement is followed with the proper attention to detail, rigorous laboratory methodology, and precision in data recovery the findings are in accord with and support both CO2's GHG properties and the pH shifts in accord with the absorption of CO2 into aqueous solutions. It's not magic, it's basic science fully in accord with mainstream science understandings.

Except that the CLAIMS for damages due to AGW and the related OA are NOT based simply on the amount of man-made CO2 added to the atmosphere. Climate scientists ADMIT that with only man-made contributions of CO2 -- nothing much interesting would happen.. The DOOM and GLOOM projections require the Feedback mechanisms of melting glaciers, changes in the thermal transport zones in the seas, clouds etc caused by the marginal warming. These things exist, and make the calculus ASTRONOMICALLY more difficult to handle.

And I say marginal warming because the change from 280ppm all the way to 560ppm of CO2 only projects about a 1.4degC increase at the surface using simple stuff like the CO2 forcing function and a GUESS about the climate sensitivity..

So my pal -- it aint' as simple as focusing on CO2 concentrations alone. All those experiments will give you qualitative confirmation of the effect. No enlightment on whether to worry about it..

 

[bobgnote]

The planet isn't sick, you are. You are making yourself suffer needlessly by suppressing your homosexuality. Trust me, nobody cares. You could sign up for RuPaul's Drag Race and nobody here or in your life would give a crap, but you might be happier

I didn't say that YOU had to do the experiment, I just thought that with all of these colleges and universities all signed on to AGW, you'd think at least ONE of them would have done an experiment showing the expected drop in pH per increase in CO2.

How many gigatons of addition CO2 are added every year from "Manmade global warming"?

What percentage of that is absorbed by the ocean?

What percentage of the newly absorbed CO2 is converted to Carbonic acid?

What is the pH of Carbonic acid

What is the pH of the ocean?

What is the expected drop in ocean pH as a result of the newly added carbonic acid (do they make numbers that small?)

Work that out for a bit

Fuck you, Crosstard bitch. Hit search, if you don't know all that shit, from memory. I am surprised anybody would do anything you suggest, since you are like any other meth-freak who turns tricks. I wouldn't have anything to do with you, out of this house.

You watch the drag races; I don't. You want to drive your dose into the planet; I neither have nor want some dose. You think the planet isn't sick; I say you are queer as a three-dollar-hillbilly, and you are every bit like swishes who used to trick, shoot speed, and trick some more, all the way past HIV, to full-blown AIDS. So eat shit, punk.

I am not sick. Actually, I am healthy and athletic. Eat shit and die, Crosstard.

 

[Trakar]

It destroys a central underpinning of the AGW theory. Knock out the foundation and the theory collapses....as it is doing worldwide.

Please explain in detail your understanding of the central AGW underpinning you feel this paper destroys and specify in the paper the statements and evidences that you feel refute or destroy this underpinning.

(other than an attempt to attack AGW in general, I still don't see the relevence of this paper to the discussion topic of this particular thread's subject)

 

[Old Rocks]

Westwall has done this repeatedly. Stating that a paper refutes the major premises of AGW, yet when called to point out why this is so, he is silent,or launches into a political lecture condemning all of we "liberals".

 

[Old Rocks]

Your babbling a bunch of nonsense about bears and volcanoes and in general using jargon that makes it apparent you are more of a blog expert than a scientific one.

AGW has nothing to do with science. This is religion, not science.

Science is a process of discovery and refinement. In science, questioning is critical. Something like AGW, where questioning of dogma is met with harsh penalty is religion, where the clergy fears anyone looking too closely.

Let's face it, Mann, Jones, Gore, and Rajendra Pachauri are PROVEN frauds, yet what your church bases your claims on are driven by these men. No wonder those who question the church find that they cannot be published and are fired from jobs - the clergy knows that legitimate science reputes what the church teaches, rather than supports it.

So why would I debate AGW? To convince you that it's a fraud? You already know it's a fraud, and you don't care. So like the JW's and Scientologists, you deserve and get only derision from me.

OK. People that have committed scientific fraud in peer reviewed journals have that fraud exposed in the same journals by other scientists. So, give us the articles, the journals they were published in, by whom written, and the dates.

Otherwise, be exposed for the big mouthed brainless yap-yap you are.

 

[Old Rocks]

The part about 'papist wingnut' really got you going.

It's possible that Catholicism is just as stupid as the AGW cult, but no one is making laws based on Catholic doctrine, so it isn't a concern to me.

You refer to Scientology, you drop 'cult' re AGW, I suppose, and you are suspected of a kind of baptism.

Scientology may not be quite as nutty as the AGW morons, but they are pretty fucked up.



Why would a composite mythological figure want someone to fuck themselves?

Of course, if you were rational, you wouldn't follow the AGW cult.

You just Can't Understand Normal Thought...

Have you learned to bend over, for Father Horn-dog? What's your religion, if it isn't from St.Wingnut's miserable catechism? Screw you, for not posting even one link, while taking up half a page, with your huffing and puffing.

I understand that you are weak of mind, it's why you follow a cult. While your cult teaches that those who deny are heretics teaching strange faiths, the truth is that most of us would prefer rational inquiry based on demonstrable fact and sound experimentation.

It's called "science," you really wouldn't understand.

You sure do like to elaborately segment quotes, but you fail to offer any links, to event or study reports. Phil Jones is not a bad reference, but you merely rant, since you are really fucking stupid. So quote in quote in quote and make farty replies, asshole.

Phil Jones is a proven fraud - and you are a drooling moron licking the diarehha from his anus as is so typical of your stupid cult.

You going out tonight to burn down the lab of some heretic denier who found evidence of yet more fraud by your church?

{WASHINGTON - Five glaring errors were discovered in one paragraph of the world's most authoritative report on global warming, forcing the Nobel Prize-winning panel of climate scientists who wrote it to apologize and promise to be more careful. The errors are in a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.N.-affiliated body. All the mistakes appear in a subsection that suggests glaciers in the Himalayas could melt away by the year 2035 - hundreds of years earlier than the data actually indicates. The year 2350 apparently was transposed as 2035. }
.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

{...more than 50 per cent of observed glaciers in the Karakoram region in the northwestern Himalaya are advancing or stable.
"Our study shows that there is no uniform response of Himalayan glaciers to climate change and highlights the importance of debris cover for understanding glacier retreat, an effect that has so far been neglected in predictions of future water availability or global sea level," the authors concluded.
Dr Bookhagen said their report had shown "there is no stereotypical Himalayan glacier" in contrast to the UN's climate change report which, he said, "lumps all Himalayan glaciers together."
Dr Pachauri, head of the Nobel prize-winning UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has remained silent on the matter since he was forced to admit his report's claim that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 was an error and had not been sourced from a peer-reviewed scientific journal. It came from a World Wildlife Fund report.
He angered India's environment minister and the country's leading glaciologist when he attacked those who questioned his claim as purveyors of "voodoo science".
The environment Minister Jairam Ramesh had cited research indicating some Himalayan glaciers were advancing in the face of the UN's claim.}

<daveinboca>

Your religion is a fucking fraud, we all know it.

You are an idiot, and we all know it.

Global warming: New study says Himalayan glaciers not melting as fast as previously predicted, at least for now « Summit County Citizens Voice

SUMMIT COUNTY — Glaciers in the Himalaya are not shrinking as fast as once predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Some glaciers in the Karakoram Range have grown slightly in the past decade, according to a team of European researchers who recently completed one of the most detailed surveys of the region to-date.

But there are still valid concerns about variability that could leave some valleys dry, at least on a seasonal basis.

“The majority of the Himalayan glaciers are shrinking, but much less rapidly than predicted earlier,” said Tobias Bolch, of the University of Zurich and Dresden University of Technology.

Bolch said the earlier predictions were based on erroneous mapping. The newest study, published in Science, is based on satellite data showing that glaciers in the Himalayas and Karakoram cover a total area of about 40,800 square kilometers — about twenty times larger than all glaciers of the European Alps put together,but as much as twenty percent smaller than was previously assumed.

Along with satellite data, the researchers added all existing measurements of length, area and volume changes and mass budgets into their calculations.

Some of the measurement series on length changes date back to 1840, and measurements of glacier mass budget that instantaneously reflect the climate signal are rare. Overall, the researchers recorded average length decreases of 15 to 20 metres and area decreases of 0.1 to 0.6 percent per year in recent decades, as well as an average 40 centimeter lowering of glacier surfaces.

“The detected length changes and area and volume losses correspond to the global average,” Bolch said.

For the regions in the northwestern Himalayas and especially in the Karakoram Range, the researchers noted very heterogeneous behavior in the glaciers. Many of them are dynamically unstable and prone to surges that largely occur independently of climatic conditions.