Himalayas not melting. Panic anyway.

Al Gore probably won’t be please by the following story that was published by The Guardian:

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 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.

Click on the above link to read the entire story. How does the above-cited discovery fit into doctrine of the Church of Global Warming?

CPAC 2012 Begins
The GOP Presidential Message
  • jim_m
  • herddog505

    Is the science still settled?

  • davidt

    We can’t stop now, this shows our green initiatives are working!

  • Are the oceans receding yet?

    • jim_m

      NASA says “Yes”.  http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-262

      But don’t worry.  Ocean levels falling is due to weather and not climate.  We can expect water world to happen in the next few years unless we convert to a communist, agrarian society in the next 4 years.

      Frankly, looking at the graph I’m surprised that NASA didn’t attribute the sea level fall to obama.  Expect reprisals.

  • ackwired

    As one who did not know that global warming was false because it was talked about by a Democrat, I find this information encouraging.

    • Its false because there isn’t any evidence to support it being true, and plenty of evidence that the model is flawed, the scientists involved know it, and have been engaging in data manipulation and coverup to hide it.

      • ackwired

        Actually the chemistry that is the basis of the theory is undeniable.  What is unknown is how much effect the chemistry is having.  Once it became a political argument instead of a scientific one, the water became pretty murky, with namecalling etc.  For me, any evidence that greenhouse gases are not rapidly changing the climate is very welcome.

        • Rob

          The problem with your statement is that it is only accurate to the point that the theory itself, while undeniably valid on it’s face, is based upon an incomplete understanding of how the ecosystem actually works and the misunderstanding that the Earth is a closed system when it’s not. Closed systems are self perpetuating and unaffected by external factors, but the Earth is directly affected by changes in solar output, in fact solar variance can account for a disproportionate amount of global temperature variation but it’s never accounted for in any of the AGW models, something scientists who oppose the AGW theories currently being touted have been trying to point out for years, but since there’s no money or political power to be garnered that gets ignored.

          • ackwired

            Hmm…This doesn’t look right.  There is nothing in the theory that excludes external factors from infuencing the climate.  I think you may mean that the computer models do not take these external factors into consideration.  That would probably be a valid point.

          • But they rely almost exclusively on their computer models to drive their ‘solutions’ and the computer models not including things like solar radiation variance makes the models they heavily rely on entirely invalid.   Their theory isn’t that warming can occur with CO2. . its that MAN MADE co2 IS CAUSING and WILL CAUSE more global warming – RIGHT NOW.

          • ackwired

            Well, think about it, Ryan.  CO2 DOES cause warming.  We just don’t know how much.  The computer models are just a guess at how much.  We don’t know how much other factors are affecting the climate either.  Some recent evidence indicates that some of the more dire predictions are off base.  That’s good news for the earth.  It doesn’t mean that the people who made the predictions are evil.

          • CO2 is the second most common “green house gas” in the atmosphere and is far less effective at trapping heat than the number one “green house gas.”

            Care to guess what the two orders of magnitude greater contributor to “Green House” effect is?

        • herddog505

          The problem is that the theory has been extended and applied in a manner that isn’t sound.  The syllogism is “CO2 traps heat, creating a greenhouse effect —> we must limit the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere or we’re all gonna die!”

          That’s akin to “People can drown in water —> we have to stop people being near water!”

          Rob makes other excellent points about the flaws in AGW in this thread.

          • ackwired

            Yeah…That happens.  That’s what I meant about it becoming a political argument.  To much heat on both sides and not enough light.

        • Just because pieces of the theory have grains of ‘truth’ doesn’t mean there is any evidence that the gestalt, the entire theory, is true.  At the most basic levels their Anthropomorphic global warming models — the ones they heavily rely on – fail to have any predictive power and have for a long time now. When a model fails to have any predictive power, that model needs to be discarded.  

          • ackwired

            As the evidence proves the models to be flawed, they will be discarded or modified.  In your comments about the theory, are you sure that you are not confusing the theory with the computer models?

          • jim_m

            If only that were true.  Evidence has mounted that the models are flawed. However, the warmists have chosen to ignore that evidence, denounce those who have reported it and they have actively worked to conceal the error in their models. 

            That is the problem.

            And to respond to your comment that we do not know all the factors that influence climate:  You are correct, but we have learned some things in the last year that are enormously significant. We have studies that indicate that solar radiation has a far more significant influence on the formation of clouds than previously thought.  In fact the influence dwarfs all previously proposed mechanisms for cloud formation.  The warmists have demounced that study and declared that it is irrelevant to thier models.  That isn’t true but we are dealing not with scientists but with religious zealots.

  • 914

    Maybe Albert and the rest of the green Earther’s should camp out on K2 until we all come around to their way of thinking..

    • UOG

      Ah! An Occupy K2 movement. Great idea, 914.

      If Albert is willing to go I’ve got a couple of old sleeping bags I’d be willing to donate.

      • 914

        Yeah!! Kinda like Tree sitting  with Daryl Hannah to spare the Charmin! Only no fossil fueled helicopters or Saint Bernard’s to save their ass’s when they bitch and moan about the -110 windchill factor..!

  • The reason they have lost no snow is due to global warming. Freak  Anomalies like this are to be expected when you have man made global warming. 

    • So warm=cold.  I get it!

      Guess that means if we blow the energy budget on solar and wind scams we’ll have lots of constant power!

      • Rob

        Heh! I have this argument all the time with my “enlightened” neices who swear that I just don’t understand the complexity of “global climate change” and how it’s causing all the snow storms and cold winters. I like to point out that it used to be called “global warming” and they only started calling it “climate change” when the warming stopped.

        We don’t talk much.

    • The failure of Himalayan snowcaps to shrink is a freak anomaly?

  • That won’t stop the community.  Only thing missing from the AGW group is recognition as a religious organization.

    Example:  Got into a bit of a debate about the recent “no measurable change in temps” over the past decade.  Referenced The University of East Anglia.  Promptly had a few warmists deride my data from “The University of East Denylia”.  Amazing how quiet they became when I pointed out who the CRU was and that the data they were oh so dearly defending came from the place they were deriding.

    It’s now (well, pretty much always has been) ego and politics.  When everyone you know ells you “yes this is the way and boy are you smart for seeing it as such”, it’s really hard for people to get off that perch.

    • jim_m

      Warmists don’t know where the information comes from and they aren’t interested in the data. They have a religion and no amount of factual proof will change their minds.

    • jim_m

      Warmists don’t know where the information comes from and they aren’t interested in the data. They have a religion and no amount of factual proof will change their minds.

  • Damn that AGW, is there NOTHING it can’t do?

  • W

    I suspect the closer to releasing of and with greater quantity of data and process that many of these so called global climate science organizations will be required to release, the more of these “adjustments” to past claims will happen.

    There is nothing like a little light to help illuminate things up at times. No wonder they fought and are fighting so hard not to release such data and processes.
     

  • LiberalNightmare

    Stupid science. Always getting in the way of our social engineering.

    • herddog505

      That’s why the left was in such a big hurry to pass Cap and Trade and all the other global warming legislation: they had to get the laws on the books before the REAL “inconvenient truth” that it was all based on horsesh*t became obvious.