Chinese Glaciers Melting Rapidly In The Himalayas, Researchers Say

Glacier Melting

The Huffington Post UK   First Posted: 25/10/11 18:40 BST Updated: 25/10/11 18:42 BST

Global warming is rapidly melting China's Himalayan glaciers, a study has said.

According to a report published in the journal Environmental Research Letters on Tuesday, annual temperature increases are having a seriously detrimental impact on glaciers.

The research suggests that the Yalong glacier in the Gangrigabu Mountains alone retreated by 1,500 metres between 1980 and 2001.

This is explained by temperature rises in the region. Of 111 weather stations across southwestern China gathering data between 1961 and 2008, 77% showed temperature rises.

Researchers at the Chinese Academy of Sciences, led by Li Zhongxing, identified three glaciers problems that were likely to be caused by global warming. Many glaciers showed a "drastic retreat", as well as large loss of mass, and glacial lakes, formed of melting ice, had expanded.

The researchers in China warned that the glaciers are an "integral part of thousands of ecosystems". They were also keen to emphasise that effect of the glacial melting is "far more serious that simply altering the landscape".

FOLLOW HUFFPOST UK

Global warming is rapidly melting China's Himalayan glaciers, a study has said. According to a report published in the journal Environmental Research Letters on Tuesday, annual temperature increase...
Global warming is rapidly melting China's Himalayan glaciers, a study has said. According to a report published in the journal Environmental Research Letters on Tuesday, annual temperature increase...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 45
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
01:09 PM on 11/10/2011
really weird !!
This comment has been removed.
BlackbirdHighway
Brawndo's got electrolites!
04:45 AM on 10/27/2011
There are actually dozens of glaciers worldwide that have stopped melting entirely. I'm surprised the climate skeptics haven't brought those up in their arguments.

Maybe it's because those glaciers are gone, melted completely away. Glacier National Park once had 150 glaciers 150 years ago. Now it's down to 25 and in just a few years it will no longer have any glaciers.
photo
Hitchcockcameo
In the shadows, directing your every move.
11:37 PM on 10/28/2011
Wow. I wonder if they'll rename the park...or leave it as a sardonic testament to anti-science rhetoric.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alteredstory
Hold on to the center
05:46 PM on 11/07/2011
Which glaciers, and what is your source?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
fireofenergy
Promote freedom AND science
01:59 AM on 10/27/2011
GW is true but the deniers are RIGHT about the stink'n politics behind it! (read my other recent posts because I can't paste)...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MikeWebster
Always happy.
06:35 AM on 10/26/2011
Another problem is that millions are reliant on water from these glaciers.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Roadrun
In Financial Theocracy we Trust
02:04 PM on 10/27/2011
Right. Millions rely on that water to grow their food too. There are huge amounts of people living along the banks of those rivers created by those glaciers.
photo
Hitchcockcameo
In the shadows, directing your every move.
06:12 AM on 10/26/2011
Those darn Chinese scientists getting rich off the Gore climate conspiracy.....oh, wait...guess not.
photo
DocSkull
My questions aren't rhetorical.
12:31 PM on 10/26/2011
"Those darn Chinese scientists getting rich off the Gore climate conspiracy­.....oh, wait...gue­ss not."

As any denier will tell you, the complete lack of evidence just proves the secrecy of the conspiracy by a cabal of liberals, socialists, scientists, communists, NOAA, universites, Al Gore, world governments, intellectuals, MSNBC, United Nations, Noble Peace Committee, George Soros, and NASA to tax fossil fuels. Which are already taxed.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
KarlaElisa
The atmosphere is Toxic
09:47 PM on 11/05/2011
see, i don't think we should tax fossil fuels. i think we should outlaw fossil fuels. just think of all the dough you'll save under my plan.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realpolitic
Proud member of the reality-based community!
03:12 AM on 10/26/2011
Wow, the deniers chastised the IPCC for saying the Himalayan glaciers were melting. What say you now deniers? Are the deniers ever right on anything? I am still waiting for them to make a single salient point, but it eludes them.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
GhostOfFDR
Your micro-bio is too brilliant to be approved
01:30 AM on 10/27/2011
Any bets on the stupidest denier quote? Rush Limbaugh: "It serve the Chinese right for putting their glaciers so close to the sun."
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realpolitic
Proud member of the reality-based community!
05:35 AM on 10/27/2011
Wow, that quote is dumb even for el Rushbo!!   I think deniers get their science from Rush Limbaugh.
photo
Hitchcockcameo
In the shadows, directing your every move.
11:33 PM on 10/28/2011
What's really telling is that I can't discern whether Rush actually said what you've quoted, or if you've created an hypothetical.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:53 AM on 10/26/2011
I wonder what China will do when it starts running out of water. China will have about 1.5 billion people by then, while Russia's population is estimated to be around 139 million in 2030. That does not bode well for Chinese-Russian relations. The intelligent thing for Russia to do would be to sell or lease large parts of eastern Siberia to China, but given the nationwide hysterics when the Russian gov't proposed returning a few worthless islands to Japan in exchange for a large amount of money and a trade agreement, that doesn't seem very likely. I think war will break out between Russia and China by 2050 unless there is a radical change in climate which restores the Himalayan glaciers.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MikeWebster
Always happy.
06:37 AM on 10/26/2011
That would be a very quick way for China and Russia to commit suicide.

Yes there will be wars over climate change. I don't think many will be going China or Russia in the short term though.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:23 PM on 10/26/2011
I'm thinking of a "low intensity war" (stupid name for it but that's what it's called). There are already problems with Chinese crossing the Amur River in search of jobs in the north (sound familiar?). I think there will be a lot of Chinese settling in the forests of Siberia, lots of saber-rattling, pushing back and forth. I don't think there will "total" war because it would be too destructive. I also think China will win in the end, with 10 times the people it can absorb a lot more losses. I think Russia will eventually lose most of its land east of the Urals.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
eaarth2
“An era ends when its illusions are exhausted
01:22 AM on 10/26/2011
lots of ice is melting- but the ice in the Himalayas is a vital water source for agriculture and human consumption in several nations. And its going quickly.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ramkshrestha
Welcome to Nepal - the birthplace of Buddha
08:32 PM on 10/25/2011
World leaders are not giving priority to Global warming in fact. They just want others to do for them.
12:37 AM on 10/27/2011
If anthropogenic global warming is a fact, consider this:

1. There is nothing man can do to stop it at this point.

2. The developing countries must immediately start to reduce their populations.
Humans and the animals we eat are prolific producers of CO2 and Methane.

3. The developing countries must immediately reduce fossil fuel consumption to 1970's levels.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
GhostOfFDR
Your micro-bio is too brilliant to be approved
01:44 AM on 10/27/2011
"1. There is nothing man can do to stop it at this point."

False, unless by "stop it at this point" you mean "stop it today".

"2. The developing countries must immediatel­y start to reduce their population­s.
Humans and the animals we eat are prolific producers of CO2 and Methane."

I assume you mean developed (first world) countries. The developing countries have very little CO2 emission per capita.

Humans and animals do not produce CO2. Any CO2 they emit is the result of CO2 in the food they eat which came from the atmosphere. The process is CO2 neutral.

Methane is a problem in pigs and cows, but not nearly as much of a problem as the fossil fuels that are consumed to grow food for cows and pigs. Both these problems could be helped by reduction in meat consumed and by choosing species for meat that are not so dependent on fossil fuels and don't produce so much methane.

"3. The developing countries must immediatel­y reduce fossil fuel consumptio­n to 1970's levels."

False. Replace developing with developed and immediately with eventually and you'd have it right.

I suppose you're implying that changing your eating habits, having to drive a biodiesel car, and getting your electricity from a solar thermal plant is just too high a price to pay for saving trillions of dollars and hundreds of millions of lives in the next couple centuries. (Remember, your fossil fuels aren't going to last that long anyway.)
photo
qwert1234
haha, charade you are
08:11 PM on 10/25/2011
this just proves how big the c/o/n/s/p/i/r/a/c/y is; even the glaciers are in on it!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lbsaltzman
Permaculture and Sustainability
10:09 PM on 10/25/2011
Very funny!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realpolitic
Proud member of the reality-based community!
03:10 AM on 10/26/2011
good one!