Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth Science Technology

Himalayan Glaciers Are Melting at Furious Rate, New Study Shows (wsj.com) 129

Posted by msmash from the growing-concern dept.
Glaciers across the Himalayas are melting at an extraordinary rate, with new research showing that the vast ice sheets there shrank 10 times faster in the past 40 years than during the previous seven centuries. From a report: Avalanches, flooding and other effects of the accelerating loss of ice imperil residents in India, Nepal and Bhutan and threaten to disrupt agriculture for hundreds of millions of people across South Asia, according to the researchers. And since water from melting glaciers contributes to sea-level rise, glacial ice loss in the Himalayas also adds to the threat of inundation and related problems faced by coastal communities around the world. "This part of the world is changing faster than perhaps anybody realized," said Jonathan Carrivick, a University of Leeds glaciologist and the co-author of a paper detailing the research published Monday in the journal Scientific Reports. "It's not just that the Himalayas are changing really fast, it's that they're changing ever faster."

Scientists have long observed ice loss from large glaciers in New Zealand, Greenland, Patagonia and other parts of the world. But ice loss in the Himalayas is especially rapid, the new study found. The researchers didn't pinpoint a reason but noted that regional climate factors, such as shifts in the South Asian monsoon, may play a role. The new finding comes as there is scientific consensus that ice loss from glaciers and polar ice sheets results from rising global temperatures caused by greenhouse-gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Many peer-reviewed scientific studies have identified human activity as a cause of rising global temperatures. So did a report issued in August by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which said "human influence is very likely the main driver of the global retreat of glaciers since the 1990s." For the new study, Dr. Carrivick and his colleagues scanned satellite photos of almost 15,000 glaciers in the region for signs of the large ridges of rock and debris that glaciers leave behind as they slowly grind their way through the valleys. Using the locations of these ancient glacial tracks, the scientists estimated the span of ice sheet coverage in previous centuries.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Himalayan Glaciers Are Melting at Furious Rate, New Study Shows More

Himalayan Glaciers Are Melting at Furious Rate, New Study Shows

Comments Filter:

  • A perfect illustration (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jenningsthecat ( 1525947 ) on Monday December 20, 2021 @10:19AM (#62099325)

    of the inability of models to accurately predict the effects of climate change. Even the most pessimistic of scientific projections in this field seem naive a year or two after they come out. 'We don't know what we don't know' comes into play - there are simply too many inter-dependencies for us to figure out and keep track of.

    When estimating the cost of a job or a project it's common practice to add in a fudge factor to cover unforeseen developments. Unscientific though it may be, perhaps this procedure should be applied to AGW projections.

    • Re:A perfect illustration (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Joce640k ( 829181 ) on Monday December 20, 2021 @10:33AM (#62099365) Homepage

      of the inability of models to accurately predict the effects of climate change. Even the most pessimistic of scientific projections in this field seem naive a year or two after they come out.

      Yep. Nobody should lift a finger until there's a model that can predict it all to 0.1% over a 50 year period.

      • I can't say for sure what the GP's intent was, but it seemed to me like they understand that things can actually be worse than projections (they are) and that when this can be the case (as always) you plan ahead to account for this eventuality. It's not an argument for ignoring the models, but for making plans to handle the situation in which the models don't project the full extent of the situation.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by shanen ( 462549 )

          I'm pretty sure the GGP is a clever troll and his malicious intent was recognized by the GP. You [drinkypoo] are being generous, but some of the trolls seem to evolving towards deeper cunning these days. Not just on Slashdot.

          I still think a MEPR system with several time-based dimensions would be an easy way to ignore them. However I've also started theorizing about how constructive dialog can generate better reasons. I can't remember the Latin expression for the ultimate miracle, but is it possible I'm on t

          • I'm pretty sure the GGP is a clever troll and his malicious intent was recognized by the GP.

            I honestly wasn't trolling - it's not something I do, at least not consciously. And drinkypoo was right - but perhaps I could have stated my case more clearly.

            I'm not advocating the abandonment or dismissal of climate modelling, and I'm aware that those who come up with the models are doing their best in a very complex situation. I'm simply saying that it seems people in general, and politicians in particular, tend to accept the projections as accurate; or worse, they think they're exaggerated. And since th

            • One way of doing that might be to - openly and transparently - 'fudge' the modeling results based on historical performance.

              Yes fudge the numbers for the outcome you want.
              The deniers would love that if they found out. Oh you want to do it transparently. That will never come back to bite anyone in the ass.

    • Re:A perfect illustration (Score:4, Insightful)

      by K. S. Kyosuke ( 729550 ) on Monday December 20, 2021 @10:34AM (#62099367)
      As far as I'm aware, so far, AGW projections have been generally within error bars. [realclimate.org] But if you're asking for predictions for extremely specific places, you may be out of luck.

      • As far as I'm aware, so far, AGW projections have been generally within error bars. [realclimate.org] But if you're asking for predictions for extremely specific places, you may be out of luck.

        Exactly. The overall predictions have been quite accurate. The finer regional detail you ask for, the more uncertainty there is.

        It's easy to predict, for example, the average precipitation in North America over a given year, with reasonable error bars. It's hard, though, to predict "how much rainfall will there be on March 12 in Easton, PA at 1:20pm?".

        • It's easy to predict, for example, the average precipitation in North America over a given year, with reasonable error bars. It's hard, though, to predict "how much rainfall will there be on March 12 in Easton, PA at 1:20pm?".

          Even if you could predict droughts you could be rich.

        • As far as I'm aware, so far, AGW projections have been generally within error bars. But if you're asking for predictions for extremely specific places, you may be out of luck.

          Exactly. The overall predictions have been quite accurate. The finer regional detail you ask for, the more uncertainty there is.

          That's incredibly easy to do when you use very generous error bars. That's part of the issue. They're making very directed and specific statements and then leaving wide margins of error. So they can make

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by evanh ( 627108 )

      Being shocked at seeing it play out doesn't automatically mean it's a mismatch to the earlier predictive models.

      • The earth for most of its history is ice free and it is well established that we are exiting an ice age. Also, we are releasing most of the carbon that was sequestered during the Carboniferous era. Returning that carbon will lead to a more productive and warmer biosphere, just as it was before plants started growing bark that couldnâ(TM)t be broken down by fungus at the time. That sequestered carbon was an error in the evolutionary arms race between plants to grow and fungus to break them down. That th

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by evanh ( 627108 )

          The evidence is, Earth was already heading back into another ice-age. Except we, humans, broke it. And the risk is we've broken it so badly that the tipping points will be horrifically severe.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by evanh ( 627108 )

            As in the atmosphere/oceans end up poisoned for everything that relies on oxygen for respiration.

          • Rather, we're heading into another glaciation of the Ice Age that we've been living in for the last few million years.

            Yes, we've been living in an Ice Age throughout human history and long before that. AGW is pushing us out of the glaciation we've been in, to rather more "normal" temperatures for the planet.

            Which is not to suggest that AGW is a good thing. It is happening relatively quickly, for one thing. And it MAY (stress on the "may") be pushing us out of the glaciation that we'd normally expect i

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by jbengt ( 874751 )

          The earth for most of its history is ice free and it is well established that we are exiting an ice age.

          The first part of your statement is true, but the second isn't.

          We have already (±15,000 years ago) exited a glacial maximum. We have been in an ice age for 2 or 3 million years. Extrapolating from the history of this ice age, we would be due to start a downward temperature trend in sometime in the next several thousand years and reach another glacial maximum in many 10s of thousands of years.\

        • > it is well established that we are exiting an ice age

          Seems evanh's comment is right :

          A 420,000 year deuterium excess record from East Antarctica : Information on past changes in the origin of precipitation at Vostok https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.... [wiley.com]

          A simplified graph can be found here : https://static.skepticalscienc... [skepticalscience.com] - That graph was taken from here : https://skepticalscience.com/h... [skepticalscience.com]

    • Unfortunately, all the models seem to be too conservative, and might focus on the wrong metrics for change management. Average temperature rise might be far too course of a measurement to avoid chaos-inducing change, and the rate of change might be much faster than we had predicted when looking at things like sea level rise.

      The pessimist in me worries about our civilization in my lifetime.

      • Damnit I could have sworn coarse was there can I blame auto-correct on that one or do I have to chalk it up to the downfall of civilization? Or, are they one in the same?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jd ( 1658 )

        I think the best we can say is that James Lovelock's worst-case scenario hasn't come to pass yet but that he looks to be more accurate than the IPCC for his longer term forecast for 2028.

        https://www.theguardian.com/th... [theguardian.com]

        • Yeah a quick analysis of entropy kind of gives the end of the story away. I might not be as pessimistic as Lovelock, but I do agree that at some point you are going to need a dramatic technological solution to buy time.

    • of the inability of models to accurately predict the effects of climate change.

      Depends on what you mean by "inability". On a global scale, the overall models have been pretty much spot on. The further down you get into regional predictions, the more uncertainty there is. When you get to extremely fine details, like rate of precipitation on a very small portion of the world (the Himalayan glaciers total about 0.004% of the Earth's surface area), the predictions are, indeed, very uncertain.

      ...
      When estimating the cost of a job or a project it's common practice to add in a fudge factor to cover unforeseen developments. Unscientific though it may be, perhaps this procedure should be applied to AGW projections.

      Not unscientific at all. In science we account for this in the form of "error bars," and if y

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by kot-begemot-uk ( 6104030 )
      Because it is NOT climate change. Climate change if involved is a MINOR factor in this one.

      One look at a photo from Delhi will tell you what it is - IT IS F*CKING SOOT!!! Himalayas are downwind from the place with the most polluted air on the planet. It is a miracle of biblical proportions they have any glaciers left. What do you want? Glaciers to survive if you spray paint them black? With the amount of sunshine near the equator? Come on get real, stop singing Holy Greta chants and use some brain and hig

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by laughingskeptic ( 1004414 )
        "Anthropogenic climate change is defined by the human impact on Earth's climate" -- Humans sprinkling soot on glaciers is generally considered to be part of the broadly defined "climate change" as it has a significant long term impact on the Earth's climate. "Climate Change" in its general use is not limited to a narrow definition of CO2 and methane induced atmospheric warming caused by humans.
    • So where are the Himalayan floods? The rivers should be ten times bigger now.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by HiThere ( 15173 )

      The *rate* may be faster than predicted. The fact has been known, and is one of the reasons for various clashes between India and China. They're manuvering for a good position in the up-coming (when?) water wars. I think that China is far in the lead in this manuvering, partially due to their take-over of Tibet.

    • Heres a better article [dailymail.co.uk]. Non paywalled and with a link [nature.com] to the original paper

  • Unusual situation (Score:3)

    by AndyKron ( 937105 ) on Monday December 20, 2021 @10:20AM (#62099331)
    If other countries would just stop trying to burn as much oil as we do in the USA there would be no problem. Of course, we still want them to build our solar cells since it's cheaper there where environmental laws are almost non-existent.
    • And refine our rare earths and mine for lithium and cobalt and ... Oddly many of those countries have done such outrageous things as ban crypto currencies too. It is almost like the US is schizo in its approach to climate change. And then of course we have that low carbon space tourism thing that we are encouraging. Why oh why would spacex need to drill if they were carbon free? https://www.bloomberg.com/news... [bloomberg.com] But of course doing anything sane would hurt billionaires and we won't do that.
      • SpaceX already massively slashed carbon footprint of spaceflight simply by reusing the launch vehicle boosters. It turns out that the manufacturing emissions dominate carbon footprint of launch operations -- the fuel burned by the vehicle is negligible compared to that. If SpaceX people succeed in reusing the upper stage, they will squash their emissions even further. Certainly to much lower amounts than anyone else in the industry (ULA, Arianespace, Mitsubishi etc.) who has has to expend something like $50

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dryeo ( 100693 )

          A potential problem is that they're going to be dumping tons of water vapor into a part of the atmosphere that currently has zero humidity, with water vapor being a much more stronger greenhouse gas.
          I have no idea if that will turn out to be a problem and whether anyone is modeling it but the potential is there and we as a species have a long habit of doing stuff and then considering any negative results.

          • Water as a GHG is not a problem other than being a feedback factor. If you simply dump too much water into atmosphere *with nothing else changing*, it simply condenses out. There's no way that this water just gets suspended airborne where you dump it.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by dryeo ( 100693 )

              That's true for the lower atmosphere, here we're talking much higher up. What will happen to the water vapor is molecular disassociation under the strong UV radiation, which is why there is currently about zero water vapor up there. What the half life of water vapor is up there, I have no idea. It's is something that should be considered and hopefully doesn't have any affect. Unluckily we have a habit of dumping stuff in various places with no thought about future affects.

        • What are you smoking? Pushing a rocket vertically up with no lift other than hot gasses is not emissions free. Just the energy required to create and hold the temp at cryo for the LOX is massive. You definitely are one of the leaders of the cult of musk.
          • Who said it was "emissions free"? I said they're most likely the least polluting orbital launch company (at least per kg delivered; in terms of total emissions of course companies like RocketLab with very small LVs will be less polluting at the moment). So at the very least they're the last to be criticized for that since they're ahead of everyone else.

      • Re:Unusual situation (Score:4, Insightful)

        by DarkOx ( 621550 ) on Monday December 20, 2021 @11:55AM (#62099585) Journal

        US Policy is anything but schizo - The policy of the DNC and the McConnel/Ryan/Bush wing of the GOP is really very strait forward.

        If you are a billionaire you either are not to be asked to sacrifice a thing or if you are required to change in some way you will be made whole through some goofy combination of tax incentives, direct subsidy, and crazy offset trading scheme, and engineered carbon accounting schemes that allow green washing your activity by assigning it all to others who are induced if not outright coerced by your actions.

        If you earn regular w2 wages on the other hand and are just trying to keep you small family warm in the winter and drive to you 8-5 YOU get to shoulder the entire burden! Lucky you!

        Seriously that is what these polices ALWAYS boil down to, John Kerry and Al Gore fly around in their private jets with their entourage of security and people their to take notes, to their destinations where they enjoy the most carbon intensive opulence imaginable and discuss why you need to pay more for gas!

        • Re:Unusual situation (Score:5, Insightful)

          by stabiesoft ( 733417 ) on Monday December 20, 2021 @04:07PM (#62100373) Homepage
          Well yes of course. Musk complaining about paying a smaller fraction of his earnings this year than most w2 earners is a case in point. Heck w2 earners start by paying 7.65% just in social security/medicare. Something musk will evade since it will be long term capital gains for his bonanza. And of course he left California to avoid state tax earlier this year. He is a genius, genius at milking every tax subsidy on the planet. I'm sure he'll claim depletion allowance on those natural gas wells he drilled.

      • Of course, we still want them to build our solar cells since it's cheaper there where environmental laws are almost non-existent.

        And refine our rare earths and mine for lithium and cobalt and ...

        Cobalt is already being phased out in new generation lithium batteries for vehicles. For example: Tesla's new 4680 cell (for its next generation of cars and also its electric semitrucks) doen't use any.

        (The two major lithium chemistries currently used for stationary batteries, along with the main developing lithiu

        • Rare earths are still not processed in the US, zero. There is a plan to add some. MP the only miner of rare earths in the US in Mountain Pass currently does all processing in China for its ore. As you say rare earths are not rare. They are however very toxic to process. And because the west has a NIMBY attitude towards this kind of stuff, we exported it. I am dubious it will return to the US because of environmental concerns. We will find a different country to do it. We always do.

  • Delta T makes a difference (Score:5, Informative)

    by WoodstockJeff ( 568111 ) on Monday December 20, 2021 @10:28AM (#62099353) Homepage

    The further above zero C you get, the faster things melt.

    Even just a few tenths makes a big difference in rate.

    • I've read that as

      The further above zero C you get, the faster strings melt

      I'm not sure it's entirely wrong, though.

    • Temerature gradient heat transfer coeificient (can’t recall the correct acronym) is an important part of the equation, but I think we are seeing some effects that are less dependent on the delta-T and more on step-functions. A very small increase in temperature can conceivably have a much bigger impact than the gradient, especially when you are talking about the freezing point of water and extremely large surface areas and thermal mass.

  • They've been melting for decades and the rate has been accelerating for decades. What did people think would happen? That temperatures go above zero and ice only melts a bit and then stops, like "ok, this is enough meltage for +2C" or what?!??

    Freezing is no more. Water it is. Ice melts. Until it's gone. If it get's warmer it just melts faster. If you want to stop it, you have to get below zero C again. If that doesn't happen, ice melts away. So says Captain Obvious.

    This isn't news. I just wish people in gen

  • I find it interesting that everything about climate change is bad, bad, bad. One brief exception was an article a couple of days ago about how melting glaciers are increasing salmon habitat.

    Glaciers are dead zones. Nothing lives there. Once a glacier melts, you get vegetation, and eventually (altitude permitting) forests. This is a good thing.

    I'm not saying that a warming climate is an unalloyed good. That's obviously not the case. However, contrary to popular belief, it is also not an unalloyed evil.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ghoul ( 157158 )
      Most areas that will benefit (Green Sahara, Green Arabia, Green Outback, Stronger Indian monsoon, Inhabitable Tibet, Inhabitable Siberia) are not in the NATO areas. While areas that lose out (stronger hurricanes on East coast, deserts in California, frozen Great Britain) are in NATO areas. Global Warming talk comes mainly from NATO countries

  • Yetti (Score:3)

    by e3m4n ( 947977 ) on Monday December 20, 2021 @02:13PM (#62100009)
    Well that Yetti is going to have a hell of a time hiding soon enough. Round up the bloodhounds.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ghoul ( 157158 )
      Yeti has already been recruited into the Chinese special forces. He is currently undercover in the Frozen North as Sasquatch.

Slashdot Top Deals

New York... when civilization falls apart, remember, we were way ahead of you. - David Letterman

Close