Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years, study shows

“The world’s greatest snow-capped peaks, which run in a chain from the Himalayas to Tian Shan on the border of China and Kyrgyzstan, have lost no ice over the last decade, new research shows.”

The Guardian continues:

The discovery has stunned scientists, who had believed that around 50bn tonnes of meltwater were being shed each year and not being replaced by new snowfall.

The study is the first to survey all the world’s icecaps and glaciers and was made possible by the use of satellite data. Overall, the contribution of melting ice outside the two largest caps – Greenland and Antarctica – is much less then previously estimated, with the lack of ice loss in the Himalayas and the other high peaks of Asia responsible for most of the discrepancy.

Bristol University glaciologist Prof Jonathan Bamber, who was not part of the research team, said: “The very unexpected result was the negligible mass loss from high mountain Asia, which is not significantly different from zero”…

Read the entire report.

7 thoughts on “Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years, study shows”

  1. He states ” “It is awfully dangerous to take an eight-year record and predict even the next eight years, let alone the next century,” he said.” and yet he continues to make emotional comments about how serious the situation is/or will be – obviously does not want the money stream cut off with results that prove there is nothing at all to be concerned with

  2. Nice, looks like some good and reliable news but the Arctic and Greenland are still going. The same study shows that Alaskan glaciers have lost a huge amount of ice. It also shows that the lower level glaciers are still disappearing so the warming is still going on, its just not as bad as we thought.

  3. CO2 warming views, from advocates and skeptics, are out in vast numbers. Advocates are just repeating past claims; the skeptics are increasing in large numbers; proving the advocates wrong in every scientific claim – the well-read scientists are winning.

    At last count, 22 non-fiction books support the position that the CO2 theory is wrong. Most important, the reason for the very modest warming the Earth has seen since the cold Little Ice Age (1300 to 1850) has been well documented – see Unstoppable Global Warming by Singer and Avery. The famous physics lab CERN, in 2011, has confirmed previous studies discussed in this book; the cause is the sun, amplified by cosmic rays (particles, mostly protons from previous supernova explosions – star dust). The modest warming and cooling cycles have been seen in temperature proxy records, from around the world, for many thousands of years, and in ice cores for the last one million years.

    Moreover, the “sun/cosmic ray” cause matches our solar system sojourn around the Milky Way galaxy. The times the Earth passes through the spiral arms of the galaxy (heavily laden with cosmic particles) correlates extremely well with the major glaciations in Earth’s history over several billion years (read heaven and earth global warming: the missing science by Ian Plimer, a famous geologist from Australia).

    CO2 has never, and is not now causing any warming of significance. 98% of mankind’s CO2 emissions occur in the lowest levels of the atmosphere where laboratory results show additional CO2 saturates. The resultant temperature of a parcel of air from latent heat release, convection, etc. determines its blackbody radiation – a spectrum of many wavelengths. Both CO2 and water vapor have large wavelength ranges (open windows) that emit heat to space – acting as natural brakes on runaway warming of the atmosphere.

    Further, increased CO2 is good for plants, animals and humans. There is no life without the mutual exchange of CO2 and oxygen between us and the plant world. At 200 ppmv the plant world would be rendered inoperable; at the current CO2 levels of 390 ppmv we have a green revolution. Doubling or tripling the CO2 causes insignificant warming (it has been 7 times what we have today with a major ice age; and 25 times what we have today with no runaway heating) and great benefits for food production. Read the NIPCC report Climate Change Reconsidered for the positive benefits of increased CO2.

    The advocates refuse to read these books. The masses do not understand them – it is a difficult subject for a non-scientist. I have made it easy for the non-scientist by creating a fictional story about a nationally televised debate on this issue in 2012. The novel’s hero is a climate scientist that has studied both sides of the issue; he is a climate modeler who has switched sides and now is against the advocates. With 40 years of media hype, the rich business men (with carbon offset money in their pockets) and powerful politicians (having raised fossil fuel taxes in virtually every country of the world) do not want the “reverse Robin Hood” scenario to end “robbing from the poor and giving to the rich.”

    The powerful opposition has heard the hero, a charismatic speaker, in action and wants him out of the way — drama ensues. The hero’s final speech summarizes the flaws in the CO2 theory in laymen’s terms. See http://www.rexfleming.com to read EXPOSURE.

Comments are closed.