Photos 'show Himalayan glaciers receding'

[demoleft]

Source: afp

AFP - When British climbing legend George Mallory took his iconic 1921 photo of Mount Everest's north face, the mighty, river-shaped glacier snaking under his feet seemed eternal.

Decades of pollution and global warming later, modern mountaineer David Breashears has reshot the picture at the same spot -- and proved an alarming reality.

Instead of the powerful, white, S-shaped sweep of ice witnessed by Mallory before he died on his conquest of Everest, the Main Rongbuk Glacier today is shrunken and withered.
...
Comparing precisely matched photographs, Breashears determined that the Rongbuk had dropped some 320 feet (97 meters) in depth.

Read more: http://www.france24.com/en/20100716-photos-show-himalayan-glaciers-receding

---

from afp

[Roland99]

1. Before long, the Khumbu icefall won't be a worry for those climbing Everest.

[Stumbler]

2. But, but, but... it snowed in the winter!

Snow! In the winter!! That refutes any evidence that says global warming might be happening. Snow! In the winter!!

:sarcasm:

[Igel]

3. It's a game supporters of both sides play.

One nay-sayer had similar before/after shots. He managed to find pictures from the 1940s of some glaciers in South America and took some in 2008 or 2007. Surprise! In the 1940s the glaciers were barely in the picture; in the late '00s the glaciers were front and center, having advanced at least a mile. Ergo, it proves that there is no global warming. Eh. All it shows is that regional temperatures and rainfall can account for glacier erosion and regeneration.

This is the same. Before/after pictures, over an even longer time frame. Before, glaciers were impressively large. Now, they've greatly receded. Ergo, it proves there is global warming. Eh. It seems to ignore the fact that factors other than global warming can account for glacier erosion. Look at Mt. Kilimanjaro. The principle reason for glacier erosion is lack of atmospheric humidity --> lower snowfall. Why is there lower humidity? Because the slopes and surrounding areas have been cleared of much of the vegetation. Is global warming involved? Probably. But Mt. Kilimanjaro makes a poor poster child for global warming.

It's damned hot in July, 2009 in Houston, we had unusually hot, dry weather that began early and ended late. Oh, no! Global warming's accelerating! Eh. Sometimes Houston has heat waves.

It snowed in Dec. 2009 in Houston; we had unusually cold weather, for much longer than winter usually lasts. Oh, no! The next glacial is beginng, the interglacial period's ended! Global warming's a myth! Eh. Sometimes it snows in Houston.

Recently I saw that surface Gulf waters are at a record high temperature. Oh, no! Global warming! But the researcher, while saying that global warming is implicated, also pointed to the confluence of three different factors, none involving global warming but all of which seem to cause higher Gulf temperatures. The global warming would have accounted for some of the elevation in temperature, probably the 4th most important factor, maybe the 3rd or even the 2nd--their error bars overlap. His caveats got scant attention, generally (if at all) only after the business about global warming being involved was introduced and emphasized (sometimes with a snark towards nay-sayers, as though this alone proved global warming) and how the current water temperatures means we're doomed (I tell you!) from all the massive hurricanes we can expect in September.

We have had more and bigger hurricanes recently. Global warming, yet another proof! But there's a hurricane cycle that is poorly understood but apparently well enough attested. Perhaps it ties in with the fact that the biggest determinant of the number of hurricanes is dust storms in North Africa and the more hurricanes you have the greater the chances of them becoming big--also taking into account the limiting factor of wind shear, which is to a significant extent determined by conditions in the Pacific. So last year's record-breaking hurricane season didn't happen. Mid-cycle, but few dust storms and lots of wind shear. Oops. Naysayers: See, the prediction's wrong! Supporters: We can find evidence to account for our mistake, so never mind!

Glaciers have been receding for years. Sometimes because of local temperature, sometimes dust, sometimes rainfall. Sometimes man is an important factor; sometimes he's not. It'll take some work to tease out all the factors involved, and the researchers involved lament that there's not really enough cooperation to get the data they need. I think AGW is involved. Still, I think I'll wait for a better data set and some more convincing analysis. It does make for a sensationalistic, confirmation-bias-supporting lede. Then again, that's a game that both the RW and LW media play.

All the rah-rah go-team rhetoric gets tiresome and sets up people for really bad science.

[DLnyc]

5. So are you saying, because I've seen some illogical statements, I give up?

If you just cut out the bullshit spinning and compare the AVERAGE GLOBAL temperatures (land and sea combined) around 1880 to 1900 (say) and AVERAGE GLOBAL temperatures (land and sea combined) over the last couple of decades, you see an increase of over 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit (see here: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100715_globalstats_sup.html ).

You list a lot of types of things which are NOT solid evidence of global warming, but if you just cut to the chase and look at ACTUAL AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURES, the evidence is very straight-forward.

In addition, the warming is EXACTLY what is PREDICTED by our knowledge of the effects of CO2 on the opacity of the atmosphere to infra-red and the ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS of current (RADICALLY CHANGED) levels of CO2 in our atmosphere.

Finally, the levels of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere correspond quite closely to the excess production of CO2 by burning of fossil fuels minus the capacity of the oceans and plantlife to absorb CO2.

So your post makes the point that there exist SOME arguments which DON'T prove global warming has occurred, that it is the result of increased levels of CO2 in our atmosphere, and that those levels have been caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

On the other hand, ACTUAL EVIDENCE DOES show global warming has occurred, that it is OVERWHELMINGLY REASONABLE to conclude that this is as a result of increased levels of CO2 in our atmosphere, and that it is OVERWHELMINGLY REASONABLE to conclude that those levels have been caused by the burning of fossil fuels by human beings.

So, with all due respect, you are welcome to "wait for a better data set and some more convincing analysis", but myself I'll go with VERY HIGH QUALITY DATA and the VERY DIRECT REASONING that says:
the planet is heating up due to radically increased levels of atmospheric CO2 caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

(on edit: one can also look at the GLOBAL TOTAL glacier balance, instead of looking at one or two glaciers popular with certain right-wing news sites:

"
From 1980-2008 the mean cumulative mass loss of glaciers reporting mass balance to the World Glacier Monitoring Service is -12 m. This includes 19 consecutive years of negative mass balances.<2>
"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacier_mass_balance
)

[defendandprotect]

4. When Americans finally wake up to this they're going to say . . .why didn't you tell me?

Well -- we've known about it since 1957 or earlier . . .

And what has blocked the "telling" is the oil industry which would have found it inconvient

to lose control over natural resources -- tens of billions invested by ExxonMobil and other

oil industry companies over last 50 years to keep Americans from understand what is happening.

Lies and misinformation and disinformation -- and a 40 year or more alliance with the

NY Times where their propaganda appeared on the Op-Ed Page!!

And IMO we will never get alternative energy until we NATIONALIZE the oil industry --

No private individuals should have control over the nation's natural resources --


:)