The hyperbolic claims in the post appended below by global warming deniers that Himalayan glaciers are not receding, are bogus. Here is a 2006 peer-reviewed scientific research article in the journal Annals of Glaciology giving us the evidence for recession of Himalayan glaciers:
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/agl/2006/00000043/00000001/art00032 The title of the article is: "Glacier variations and climate change in the central Himalaya over the past few decades" Here is its abstract: QUOTE Glacier variation is one of many indicators of climate change. Repeat measurements of the glacier terminus positions for selected glaciers in the central Himalaya document that they have been in a state of continuous retreat over the past few decades. Since the 1960s the average retreat rate on the north slope of Qomolangma (Mount Everest) is 5.5-9.5 m a−1 and on Xixiabangma it is 4.0-5.2 m a−1. Many glaciers on the south slope of the central Himalaya have been in retreat, and recently their retreat rate has accelerated. Ice-core studies show that the annual accumulation on these glaciers has fluctuated, but over the last century it has declined. It decreased rapidly in the 1960s and has remained consistently below the long-term mean thereafter. Meteorological station records indicate that the annual mean temperature in the region has slowly increased, particularly during the summer months. The strongest warming has occurred in the last 30 years. These data suggest that the current glacier retreat is due to the combined effect of reduced precipitation and warmer temperatures, and, if these conditions continue, the glaciers in the region will continue to shrink. UNQUOTE ..... Ren, Jing, Pu and Qin, 2006. Here is a documentary by the Asia Society demonstrating this fact to the lay public: http://asiasociety.org/onthinnerice Cheers, Santosh --- On Sun, 1/31/10, Gabriel de Figueiredo <[email protected]> wrote: > > The Australian pollies may have signed the Copenhagen > farce, but I doubt many Aussie people are in favour, bar the > young ones, who have been brainwashed by their leftist > teachers. > > Read about "The billion-dollar hoax" at > http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/the-billion-dollar-hoax/story-e6frfhqf-1225823736564 > > which describes how the rot started last November with the > leaking of emails from the Climatic Research Unit of > Britain's University of East Anglia, followed by the false > "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster ... " claim > made by a little-known Indian scientist which made its way > into a paper by the green group WWF and from there, into the > IPCC 2007 report. > > As I said before, the emphasis must be on reducing > pollution in all its forms, not just CO2. And one way of > doing this, besides the obvious reduction in un-necessary > consumerism, is the reduction of population. (Note to Rico > - this is not a furphy). The reasons for this is that our > planet earth has finite resources, and of these resources, a > major part of it (food and water) is dependent on the > weather. The availability of the rest (minerals) are also in > decline. If we could reduce human population world-wide, > we could indeed "save the planet". > > So, those who are claiming that "humans are the cause for > climate change", should start by reducing their use of > frequent-flyer points, a major cause of CO2 build-up in the > stratosphere as there are no CO2 absorbers (aka trees) out > there. > > Gabriel. >
