Some Asian Glaciers Expanding

Yet another story demonstrating that global warming has all sorts of unpredicted consequences:

Some glaciers on Asia's Karakoram mountains are defying the global trend and getting thicker, say researchers.

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.

They take a stab at an explanation:

Having done all these calculations, the team found that between 1999 and 2008 the mass of the glaciers in this 5,615 sq km (2,168 sq miles) region of the Karakoram increased marginally, although there were wide variations between individual glaciers.

Why this should be is not clear, though it is well known from studies in other parts of the world that climate change can cause extra precipitation into cold regions which, if they are cold enough, gets added to the existing mass of ice.

"We don't really know the reason," Ms Gardelle told BBC News.

"Right now we believe that it could be due to a very specific regional climate over Karakoram because there have been meteorological measurements showing increased winter precipitation; but that's just a guess at this stage."

OK, one one level these "heads, it's global warming; tails, it's global warming" explanations get tiresome.

On the other hand, there is that old chestnut that global warming will halt the Gulf Stream and plunge Europe into the icebox.

So yes, some glacier fields might very well be growing due to climate change and global warming.

What would be really impressive is if the whiz-bang modleing had predicted that result.  Still, it is a big, complicated world and these glaciers are in an obscure part of it.

The story has an early mention of the recent IPCC debacle:

The response of Himalayan glaciers to global warming has been a hot topic ever since the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which contained the erroneous claim that ice from most of the region could disappear by 2035.

Nostalgia buffs will recall our journey to the headwaters of the IPCC error in December 2009; the 'goofed up interview' theory was vindicated six weeks later.

Comments

[AliceH]

Well, at least the reasons for glaciers LOSING mass is crystal clear, backed by solid science.

[Clarice]

I took after the WaPo's Mooney today you is pimping his book on why Republicans and Democrats think differently. (Guess who has the more open, clever minds in his book?) IHe begins by noting how closed minded conservatives don't believe in global warming . I commented that he was full of it and the very first reply was by someone big on the Himalayan melt down.

[Clarice]

*WHO is pimping*

[Captain Hate]

Reality keeps screwing up these wonderful "truths"; how inconvenient.

[GMax]

I wish there was one person who could explain the consensus...

[Clarice]

Maybe global climate change is like liposuction--win some lose some..that is, it's been reported that if the fat is sucked out of one place it just starts padding up in another.

[Melinda Romanoff]

I don't suppose that Gulf Stream dissolution could be correlated to loss of magnetic field orientation.

Nah, it's man made.

[Rick Ballard]

"I wish there was one person who could explain the consensus..."

I'll give it a try. 30-40 years ago, the proglodyte community (that small portion of it capable of counting past ten without slipping off their Birkenstocks) realized that the amount of "free" crap that could be offered to purchase votes was limited by the amount of money that could be borrowed or euchred out of the idiots dumb enough to vote for "free" crap. They also noted that progressive baby killing was succeeding to the point where the number of young dolts ignorant enough to vote for "free" crap was insufficient to pay for the "future free crap" promised to young dolts 50 years ago.

A careful study was done and the finding was that so much "free" crap had been promised on a worldwide basis that it was necessary place a heavy regressive tax on something so common that every fool in the world would be burdened with the bill for "free" crap - forever. Air fit the bill but selling a tax on air seemed a difficult task - until someone came up with the idea of declaring air toxic.

That's how the consensus on CO2 was reached and that's the moment in which the Skydragon came into being.

Now shut up and pay up - or lose the right to emit a toxic gas.

[Rick Ballard]

"or lose the right privilege to emit a toxic gas"

I goofed - no one has a right to poison poor, defenseless Gaia. It's a privilege which everyone must purchase.

[GMax]

I suspected as much does that make me a racist too?

[Ignatz]

--It's a privilege which everyone must purchase.-

Perhaps to put it in the true context of the Skydragon worshipers we could call it an indulgence to purchase not a privilege, Rick.

[Captain Hate]

Exactly Rick; to think that ostensibly "smart" people would be willing to beclown themselves by tying their credibility to the miraculous powers of one trace compound in an open system really speaks to their own hubris as much as contempt for others.

[narciso]

It's all a subset of this m.o, which rse and
pagar and Rick, have diagnosed from differeny
angles, Captain;

http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2012/04/12/teaching-as-a-subversive-activity-the-theory-of-political-indoctrination/

[narciso]

Well considering all the silliness you have
been entertaining, in her most selective audience strategy, it's a good guess, however
Roger has laid a goose egg, on all sides this
weekend

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/04/obrien-hey-roger-ailes-named-after-virgin-mary-not-prison.html

[Ben Franklin]

They're just doubling down on their passion for getting the women's vote, narco.

Give Ailes his do. He is a conservative pundit, after all.

[narciso]

This is right around the time, Graham Chapman walks in, and says it's too silly indeed;

http://www.jammiewf.com/2012/tax-cheat-timmy-attacks-romney/

[Rick Ballard]

Ignatz,

Indulgence is a much better choice. An EPA approved Gaiaan Priestess pronounces Gaia te absolvo upon receipt of a mandatory offering sufficient to cover the cost of Gaia indulging the supplicants exhalations for a specified period.

CH,

It's the lack of foundation for the "magic multiplier" that beclowns the pseudoscience structure that keeps collapsing as fast as the Rube Goldberg's responsible for repair and maintenance slap on yet another ridiculous cracked bell or broken whistle.

[Ben Franklin]

Ailes is the spokeperson for all you Jewi-- uh, I mean neocon warmongers who got my imaginary son killed in Iraq.

I hate you all.

PAY ATTENTION TO ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[narciso]

Even with such a cooked poll, that they get these numbers, after the full Alinsky treatment, doesn't bode well for the administration, 41/45 I'll take that bet.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/04/15/poll-tea-party-support-on-the-decline/

[narciso]

it's remarkable how stark the pit where we find ourselves is;

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/04/15/geithner-hey-how-about-that-remarkably-successful-obamanomics-that-might-not-produce-growth-this-spring/

[GMax]

Narc

That ABC poll did not release crosstabs. Hiding your work is a sure sign that they cooked the poll to get the result they wanted. The only thing we can tell is that its an ADULT poll. Did not even ask and screen out the unregistered or the folks who had not bothered to vote in the last couple of elections.

TRASH

[narciso]

Well I did point out how deep in the Jambalaya that poll was, this shows how dire
their situation really is.

[matt]

one of the interesting tidbits from a trip to the Antarctic a while back was that while some of the ice is melting on one side of the continent, the ice pack on the other side has been growing rapidly. Probably where all of those extra penguins were found.

We don't know what we don't know.The Lower 48 had a historically mild winter while Alaska got socked.

Weather changes, even here in CA.

[Ice melts, folks, and snow falls.]

Glaciers respond to local conditions, for instance, Kilimanjaro got drier air recently. Glaciers in general have receded since the end of the Little Ice Age, because the globe has warmed.

Antarctica is cooling and gaining ice mass. The Palmer Peninsula, AKA the Antarctic peninsula, is warming locally, for unknown reasons. Greenland is melting, slowly, and the ice cap sits in a bowl, so it can't melt and slip precipitously. Ice shelves off West Antarctica calve periodically, but that is normal. The Arctic sea ice pack has, for three years in a row, failed to achieve the recent low sea ice extent of a few years ago, and may well be cycling back to a more extensive phase
======================

[Pofarmer]

Vatican is bass ackwards on this one, too.

[Allah gave his followers undeserved wealth as a test.]

Oh, PoF, all the religions have understood the religious aspect of Green Gaiaety. The Malthusian pessimists hang their dreams on guilt over the success of the human race's utilization of cheap fossil energy to create a vibrant culture. Techno-optimists understand that energy is almost unlimited, and that a warmer world will sustain more life.
================

[lyle]

Seems as good of a place as any to post this. Well worth anyone's time:

http://www.city-journal.org/2012/22_2_apocalyptic-daze.html

[Charles Giacometti]

Can you provide an annotated list of the refereed journal articles you have read to arrive at your opinions about climate science?

[lyle]

I've read as many as Al Gore. How's that?

[The globe is cooling, folks; for how long even kim doesn't know.]

Yes, lyle, nice City Journal article, which I read earlier today elsewhere. Charles, the blogs are the cutting edge. We are pretty sure the globe has warmed. We are also pretty sure we don't know why.
========

[Charles Giacometti]

Actually, I have no idea how many Al Gore has read, nor do I have an opinion on the matter. I am intrigued, though, at just how low the bar has fallen. People are willfully stupid these days, commenting on things with absolutely no facts at hand.

Before you point fingers again, please answer the question for yourself only. Have you read the science before forming an opinion? I try to read the relevant information before forming an opinion. Do you? Again, answer for yourself only.

[Charles Giacometti]

For the record, the blogs are not the cutting edge. Science is determined through an arc of vetted research, shared among peers, and refereed among peers. Don't kid yourself that the blogs are informing you of anything. They are typically just reinforcing some bias you have.

Again. Have you read the science? Have you looked at the data? Have you determined if the results can be replicated?

Again. I have no opinion on the matter. But I work in another branch of science and I know how real work is done, and it's not done in blogs.

[Pofarmer]

Do papers by Roy Spencer and Steve McIntyre count? There is a pretty good host of published research coming out now, and no one would know a thing about them except for various blogs.

[Melinda Romanoff]

Charles-

But indeed you do have an opinion.

What branch of science, may I ask?

[Ignatz]

I've read refereed papers by Wahl, Amman, Mann, Trenberth, Hansen, Briffa, Schmidt and other warmists. I've also read papers by Spencer, Svensmark or whatever that solar guy's name is, Pielke Sr and Jr and other skeptics.
There in fact is a great deal of excellent criticism on the blogs much of it leading to corrections and revisions in supposedly refereed papers, and should have led to a withdrawal or two so egregious were the rrors.
And if you have been paying attention the climategate emails raise a great many questions as to just how corrupt the refereeing process is in the closed and protective loop of the warmist camp.

If you're a serious scientist, regardless of your views on global warming you should be concerned by the hash the clique of alarmists who dominate the IPCC and the purse strings of climate science have made of it.

[Charles Giacometti]

As I said, I have no view of the issue, as I have read none of the science. I am merely curious as to how low the bar is around here. Save for Ignatz, who seems to have done some reading.

My point is very simple. Do you read? I haven't heard the blog author respond, so I have to assume he doesn't.

Good luck, all!

[Son, you are a 'true believer'.]

Charles, I guess that peer review in the rest of science still works fairly well, but it has broken down catastrophically in climate science. It's the effect of too much power and too much money.

The skeptical climate blogs are where climate science is being done. Climate science, as traditionally conceived is reduced to throwing out garbage papers which attempt to sustain the false paradigm of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.

For the likes of you, please read about the corruption of climate science peer review in the ClimateGate emails. If you won't do that, I suggest watching the thermometers.
==============

[Until we meet again.]

Really, Charles, you bring nothing but a naive faith in peer review. That it works in your field does not mean it has worked in climate science. The only way you can be disabused of your trust in climate science peer review is to investigate it yourself.

And so, good luck to you. Happy trails.
==============

[Charles Giacometti]

In other words, "Son" aka "Until," you have never read any of the actual science. But you've skimmed a few blogs.

You can convince me otherwise if you spell out exactly how peer review has been so completely corrupted in all of the papers published in this field. Is that your claim? Which papers are garbage, and why are they garbage? Have you reviewed the data? Tried to replicate the results? Lacking that, have you read specific explications of the data and how results were not replicable?

If you haven't read specific papers and reviewed specific data, or if you read it without understanding it, you are perfectly ignorant about the validity of the science. Do you even understand that?

[Climate science is sick, and the pox has spread.]

Hi C. Nice article in the NYT today detailing trouble in peer review land, this one bio-medical science.

At least bioo-medical science doesn't have a large and growing raft of skeptics finding fundamental problems with the science, as in the case of climate science.

If you'd read my first post, as 'the globe is cooling, folks; for how long even kim doesn't know', you might find I've perused the science. Find something wrong with that before you spout about my ignorance.
============

[See L!ink U!nder N!ame]

It's the models, honey; they don't understand the underlying science.
===============

[As I said, you gotta convince yourself.]

Charles, I'm not in the business of convincing you.
==============

[Even sockpuppets get a little numerate now and then.]

Sorry, C, first comment was as 'Ice melts, folks; snow falls'.
==============

[Oh, Gad, here I am trying to convince you. Please forgive me.]

@ the link, C, pay particular attention to the discussion of the stuff from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory at the end of Judy's post and the ensuing discussion.
=============

[On my Honor.]

Hey, Charlie, seen the ghost of Paul Siple yet? I've seen the flesh.
=============

[Ah, fella, ya got the Piltdown Mann for an authority. ::grin:: He's selling autographed hockey sticks for $300 a pop, I'm not shitting you.]

Here's hoping Charlie is off convincing himself rather than some other fool. He admits to knowing little of climate science yet is all full of righteous indignation at skeptics. What he knows is authority.
==============

[Tragic. That guy with the skull in his hand knew from nuttin'.]

C'mon, Charlie, we're about to scroll off the page and get comments closed on us. I'll never know if I've convinced you.
==============

[Hey, check out all that Arctic Ice.]

Going, going.....
========