It appears that Himalayan Glaciers are rapidly replacing polar bears as the Warmenists' poster boys (objects?). For example, Richard North points out that not only does Mr Pachauri have a personal financial interest in the carbon permits scheme, he also has a personal financial interest in us stumping up for more research into said glaciers*
The Warmenist line appears to be that if the glaciers melt a) it will cause terrible flooding and b) once they are gone, the rivers they fed will dry up.
OK, I'm no expert in glaciers, but the way I understand it is this:
1. Rain or snow lands on glaciers high up the mountains.
2. Glaciers slide down the mountains and melt a bit.
3. The same rainwater or melted snow pours into the river, and is used for drinking water, irrigation etc.
In warmer countries, the model seems to be:
1. Rain or snow falls up in the mountains or hills.
2. Streams flow down into rivers.
3. The rivers carry the same rainwater or melted snow, which are used for drinking water, irrigation etc.
So the fact it is bloody freezing up in the Himalayas etc slows down the time it takes for water to get from top to bottom, but the quantity of water flowing down the river into the sea must, ultimately, be much the same as the quantity of water falling as snow or rain up in the mountains or hills.
Or have I missed something?
* In fact, Mr Pachauri seems to be to Richard North what Richard Murphy is to Tim Worstall, but that's another topic.
We don't need no stinkin' objectivity
1 hour ago
6 comments:
Every time a glacier retreats it seems to reveal evidence consistent with there having been warmer times in earlier days. No wonder the bastards don'twant glaciers to retreat.
Glaciers are a large inland store of water. If they melt the stored water will go into the sea and raise sea levels. There is input and output which with static glaciation would be in balance. It is the release of stored water that is the worry.
This is in contrast with sea ice, which does not raise sea levels when it melts.
D,yup.
MA,they are indisputably a store of water, but you can achieve the same effect by building a dam. Every now and then are some shock-horror before and after photos showing a glacier has receded over the past [random number of] decades, but seeing as sea levels haven't risen since time immemorial, that disproves rather than proves the Warmenist theory.
there are two questions then:
Are glaciers receding/melting?
What is the volume of water so released relative to the areas of the oceans.?
I'm guessing glaciers dwarf man made dams, but that's just
my guess.
As ever you can't work out what's going on for yourself because you can't get good data.
MA, there are two answers:
a. Many probably are, but so what? It's only crumbs compared to the 90% of ice that's locked up in Antarctica.
b. If all non-Antarctic ice melted overnight, according to Warmenist theory, sea levels would rise by about 6 metres, i.e. from here
"If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 61 meters (200 feet). But the average temperature in Antarctica is -37°C, so the ice there is in no danger of melting. In fact in most parts of the continent it never gets above freezing."
Sea levels have been changing since time immemorial. Some of the area now covered by the North Sea was once land, and there are many "fossil" beaches way above the present sea level. The Mediterranean was once dry land and seems to have filled up over a period of a few years.
There seem to be more vineyards in Southern England now than there were 100 years ago, and fewer than in Roman times.
The crops grown in Southen Sweden are similar to what can be grown in Kent, including maize, but there have been some new varieties. And it is cold there this evening cos I have just checked.
Post a Comment