Comments on: Another one bites the dust, literally: Bolivia’s 18,000 year-old Chacaltaya glacier is gone

By: FredT34

FredT34 — Mon, 11 May 2009 07:24:07 +0000

Yes, I found these figures from Mrs Andersen (a nice economist) some time ago, and gave it a quick look.

I downloaded the temperature sheets from La Paz and checked for high temperatures – not only mean temps as she did. It seems she missed the point that the number of high temps days increased these last years… and ice and snow usually melt when temps are high. The number of cold days won’t change anything – but an increasing number of hot days do impact glaciers.

I didn’t send my remarks to her – I read the rest of her blog and found it would be a waste of time, she doesn’t seem to be open minded on this subject…

By: Chris Winter

Chris Winter — Sat, 09 May 2009 20:20:37 +0000

Someone has taken some trouble to try and prove that the melting of Chacaltaya is not due to AGW. Unfortunately, he leaves many of the details of his method unspecified. I doubt this will surprise anyone here.
.
If anyone’s curious, this is the URL:

http://www.made-in-southamerica.org/ 2009/ 03/ reconciling-melting-glaciers-and.html

The bottom line for me is that this effort, while apparently sincere, is not convincing. I think I’ll post a comment there.

By: Mike D

Mike D — Sat, 09 May 2009 16:46:03 +0000

Er, the water isn’t going to disappear, it’s just going to be redistributed. It has to go somewhere. Still a catastrophic scenario and likely the trigger for huge population displacement and mass extinction, but not the end of the world. Atmospheric carbon has been over 2000ppm before, and the planet was very different but it didn’t turn into Mars. Let’s keep our wits about us, shall we?

By: Franklin Graham

Franklin Graham — Sat, 09 May 2009 16:30:04 +0000

One need only look at the barren, lifeless face of Mars to see what may be in store for the Blue Planet. Yes, only some scientists actually speculate that Mars ever had life on it. The point is, without water as the base of life, in glaciers, lakes, oceans, and suspended in the atmosphere, any planet will quickly become a dried out sphere with little or no atmosphere at all. Who would want such a thing for this blue planet, except an idiot?

By: mauri pelto

mauri pelto — Sat, 09 May 2009 11:42:47 +0000

Himalayan glaciers are melting significantly and this has an impact on current and proposed hydropower plants. However, take a look at the quote “Data from the International Commission on Snow and Ice in Kathmandu, Nepal reveal that the Himalayan glaciers are shrinking faster than anywhere else and could totally disappear by 2035.” Again look for yourself at the glaciers in google earth. Many are still quite large, they are losing volume and areal extent but not at a rate that will get rid of more than a few by 2035. Neither, Kennel who or the ICSI in Nepal have a grip on reality here. just like in GNP the extraordinary glacier recession is being exaggerated. Take a look at Gangotri Glacier which has retreated 1 km in last 35 years but still has an area of 280 km2, will it be gone in 26 years. No.

By: Steve Bloom

Steve Bloom — Fri, 08 May 2009 19:35:02 +0000

Ecostew beat me to it while I was looking for more detail, but here's what I have: Joe, apparently there was a conference at UCSD last week that ramped the Tibetan-region melt predictions way up from anything I'd heard before (article):

As climate change takes hold, even the mighty Himalayas and Hindu Kush mountain ranges are now losing their snow and ice. These are the world's greatest repositories of snow and ice outside of the polar regions, and yet they may melt away in just 20 to 30 years, leaving more than a billion people desperately short of water, experts concluded in San Diego this week. "There's been a super-rapid decline in the glaciers of the region," said Charles Kennel, senior strategist at the University of California San Diego Sustainability Solutions Institute and former director of Scripps Institution of Oceanography.

Yikes. (Note that the reference to the "Himalayas and Hindu Kush" is a bit unclear, since the latter is often considered a sub-range of the former, but if taken to be its own range is separated from the Himalayas proper by two other [sub-]ranges, the Karakoram and Hindu Raj. Even taking the meaning as the more expansive one limits the referenced area to the southern and western approaches to the plateau, although these ranges are clearly the most important in terms of watershed.) Also:

The final, and perhaps most worrying factor for all of Asia is a documented shift in the annual monsoon season. "Experts here said the monsoon is declining in intensity and has become more variable," said Kennel. The wettest part of India received no rain last year but a desert that had not seen rain in 50 years suddenly became wet. Overall, however there has been a decline in precipitation in the last 20 years, he said. And that also means less snow in the mountains.

This change in monsoon behavior has made it into the literature, and frankly I'm mystified as to why the governments of the subcontinent haven't already gone into a blind panic about it. Possibly it's because the future projections don't seem that bad, but still. The UCSD page on the conference didn't have much to add, unfortunately, but those are pretty strong words coming from someone like Kennel. An unrelated article quotes China's chief meteorologist to similar effect, but without the timeline. He's also "paraphrased" as considering the loss of the new railroad to be the worst that could happen (as if), but that's the Chinese government for you.

By: ecostew

ecostew — Fri, 08 May 2009 18:21:16 +0000

By: Richard Pauli

Richard Pauli — Fri, 08 May 2009 18:02:50 +0000

Dramatic images. Really shows a tipping point

Gosh, jeekers will the Waxman-Markey deal that cuts 14% by 2020 have any effect?

By: Gail

Gail — Fri, 08 May 2009 17:48:06 +0000

paulm, I would hazard a guess that the unpredictable consequences of such rapid warming will make for quite a bit of violent slushing about before climate reachs a new steady state. We (the human race) may not be around to see it.

By: paulm

paulm — Fri, 08 May 2009 17:29:13 +0000

“Ten years ago Ramirez and his team of researchers concluded that the glacier would survive until 2015. But the rate of thaw increased threefold in the last decade, according to their studies.
…
And he thinks other glaciers in the region also may be melting at a rate faster than previously known.
.

That’s called tipping action. All accelerated predicted time scales we have seen over the last 2yrs or so indicate that the system tipping point has tipped.

Just like when you pour a cup from a large 1/4 full jug of cool aid, it’s always very difficult get it right, we keep underestimating the rate of change.

We’re heading for a new steady state. What will it be 4C, 6C ??? It very likely going to be more than 2C. Of course there’s going to be some slushing about before it settles.