Vanishing Glaciers Of The Greater Himalaya - Photographic evidence

Not too surprisingly my question makes no sense to overwhelming majorities of the scientific community, proving again that overwhelming majorities of the scientific community are totally ignorant in fundamental laws of Nature. May I spell it for you to google? "If something is melting it means something freezing; or if something is warming it means something is cooling and both things are cooling in this process in nature." What fundamental law of nature have I recitied? Go, google.

 

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL....ROTFLMAO......

I went, I googled, and as I suspected would be the case, there is nothing relevant there. LOL.

"What fundamental law of nature have" you recited? LOL. Apparently one you just made up. One that makes no sense. One that is a total delusional fantasy. One that has no connection to reality. Or all of the above.

 

I dont think he realizes the difference between annual snow fall and glacial packing

 

It is very difficult to talk to believers in evolution. When I said “go, google” I obviously did not mean to ask you to google, not at all. I merely stated that atheists have no clue about fundamental laws of nature even if I chew these laws for them in the simplest way possible. I merely stated that googling cannot substitute basic education. An atheist can google logic and memorize logic fallacies, but it is no different from the monkey trying to use spectaculars. Logic was all founded and developed by believers in God; an atheist denying existence of God and trying logic is a phenomena logical only in view of other atheists; it makes others laugh at the monkey trying glasses . http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...ski-jump-brick-wall-end-5.html#post1062389282

I recited the 2nd law nature with an inclusion of a reference to the 1st law of nature.

“Heat flows spontaneously from the hot body to the cold body”, - is one of the formulations of the 2nd law of nature, and it is the 1st one.

Which means heat does not come from nowhere, even if overwhelming majorities of the scientific community want to create an impression that it does. .
Which means if one (cold) body is receiving heat or in other words if it is getting warmer, then heat comes from another (hot ) body, which is loosing heat and getting colder.

That is,- if something (a body) is warming then something (another body of the system) is cooling. That is if something is melting then something is freezing.


I understand I have used a lot of terms believers in evolution have no clue about , - like heat, warming/cooling, body, another body, spontaneously, system …. But does it make sense to try to expand any more for those who believe in science?

Since no body in nature is isolated from interaction ( heat/energy exchange) with other bodies in nature ( which means all systems are open in nature) all heat which is possible to exist in hotter bodies ( sorry for the reference to the statistical thermodynamics) has been and will be flowing to colder bodies until the temperatures of all bodies equalize (as a term and definition of thermodynamic of equilibrium) at the point of the lowest Temperature possible (0K), at the point of no more of existence of the universe. Obviously if the universe has the end it had a beginning. According to the observed reality, we, believers in God, build our views on, this process is irreversible; there are no observations which would hint that the universe will sprang back. The 2nd law specifically states: “ all cycles are irreversible”.

In the observed reality it is happening even “faster” , because if a hot body had 2 units of heat, and a cold body had 1 unit of heat, at the moment when 2 heats equalize they never have 1.5 units of heat each, but always less than they had altogether at the starting point.
In other words the 2nd law of nature states: Mechanical energy tends to dissipate in nature. In other words: Everything is cooling.

Again I have bugled minds of atheists – what mechanical energy does have to do to heat, they would ask?. Can you google “1st law”?

 

You mean how they simply curve fitted past cooling to volcano's and present warming to CO2.

You do know that if you use the models best used to attribute past coolings to volcano's we should be in an ice age.

'How do we explain the cooling in the record?'

'Blame it on volcanoes.'

'Do we have any evidence in the modern record that volcanoes produce that kind of effect'

'No but who cares.'



The BEST study is nothing but an example in curve fitting. That is why Dr. Curry left the group.

 

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL... .....that was hilarious....everything you just said there is utter nonsense......to take an example, you said: "which means if one (cold) body is receiving heat or in other words if it is getting warmer, then heat comes from another (hot ) body, which is loosing heat and getting colder"; but that is a complete misunderstanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics......the Sun is heating the Earth every second and it is not "getting colder" by doing so.....

 

I know that 95% of PhDs and 100% of professors of biology, Paleogeology, Paleontology, Paleoclimatology as well as psychology basing itself on perverted fantasies of the heavy cocaine user Freud, as well as Sociology and women’s health would agree with you 100%. That’s why I enjoy watching the overwhelming majorities of the scientific community supporting and promoting pederasty, jealousy, green energy, the fantasy of AGW, evolution and other forms of atheism. It is fun to watch greedy and brainwashed zealots trying to fool Nature and its laws.

There may be no misunderstanding in stating the 2nd. The Sun and the earth and everything else have been cooling only. If you don’t trust me, an expert in heating, cooling, heat and mass exchange, you will not read and you will understand the giver of the law, the Lord of Thermodynamics himself. I am posting the link for you and other professors not to read and if reading not to understand and just LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL . I enjoy watching atheists laughing at the Lord.

http://zapatopi.net/kelvin/papers/on_a_universal_tendency.html

"1. There is at present in the material world a universal tendency to the dissipation of mechanical energy.
2. Any restoration of mechanical energy, without more than an equivalent of dissipation, is impossible in inanimate material processes, and is probably never effected by means of organized matter, either endowed with vegetable life or subject to the will of an animated creature.
3. Within a finite period of time past, the earth must have been, and within a finite period of time to come the earth must again be, unfit for the habitation of man as at present constituted, unless operations have been, or are to be performed, which are impossible under the laws to which the known operations going on at present in the material world are subject. "

P.S. It is a misperception usual for most professors that the Sun is heating Earth. In the material reality heat flows from the Sun to the earth and from both the Sun and the Earth to the freezing infinity of the Cosmos; everything is cooling in this Cosmos.

 

Here's some more research on the Himalayan glacial melting.

Himalayan glaciers are melting rapidly after all, say scientists
The Telegraph
By Geoffrey Lean
July 27th, 2012
(excerpts)
Remember those infamous Himalayan glaciers? The ones which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC's) erroneously predicted would have disappeared by 2035, doing grave damage to the reputation of climate science? New research suggests that they are rapidly melting after all as the world warms up. This had been in some doubt, not because of the IPCC's howler – which was spotted not by sceptics, but by other climate scientists convinced global warming is indeed taking place – but because earlier this year studies of the glaciers based on satellite data spanning seven years suggested that high-altitude Asian glaciers were losing ice only a tenth as fast as had been previously estimated and that ones on the Tibetan plateau were actually growing.

But the new study – led by professors Lonnie Thompson of Ohio State University and Yao Tandong, director of the Institute of Tibetan Research at the Chinese Academy of Sciences – studied 30 years of data on over 7000 glaciers in the Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau. They found that about nine per cent of the ice present in the 1970s had shrunk over that period, thought to be a more reliable basis for measuring climate change. And where they had separate data for different decades during that time they found it showed that the melting was accelerating. “The majority of glaciers have been shrinking rapidly across the studied area in the past 30 years” Professor Yao told Nature Climate Change, the journal that published the study. The scientists expect it to go on accelerating. But, as Prof Thompson rightly pointed out “it is very hard to predict” when a glacier will disappear altogether.

 

Bigger text does not make anything more reliable or true..

As so many posters have pointed out already, some glaciers are expanding, some are retreating.Picking one or two and making some wild claims using dubious graphs and charts based on who knows what mathematics doesn't make it correct or factual. We had snow here on the 20th of april, last time that happened here where I am was in 1910. I can't say it means we had tiny ice age in 1910 and this year now can I....

 

Nobody ever claimed that it did. It does make some things more readable and emphasized.

OK, so you've now clearly demonstrated that you're not only completely ignorant about this topic and clueless about science in general, but you also didn't even bother to read the whole thread before dumping your ignorant drivel on it. From page one:

Worldwide, about 90% of the glaciers are shrinking and less than 10% show some growth due to increasing precipitation.


Long-term changes in glacier volume adapted from Cogley 2009



Percentage of shrinking and growing glaciers in 2008–2009, from the 2011 WGMS report



Cumulative mass balance curves for the mean of all glaciers and 30 'reference' glaciers (WGMS 2008 ).

 

Insulting me doesn't make you appear anything but desperate...

I seem to know enough to recognize charts, graphs and numbers taken out of context, and how important such context is in any scientific endeavor... Which you certainly do not...

 

Okay then, what's the missing context that makes these graphs misleading? If there actually is such missing context, it should be easy for you to provide it.