Glaciers on Asia’s largest mountain range getting BIGGER

As are glaciers around the world.

Satellite data shows that glaciers in part of the Karakoram range on the China-Pakistan border are putting on mass, defying (supposedly) the general trend toward glacier shrinkage.

Mt Everest region

In an article entitled “Slight mass gain of Karakoram glaciers in the early twenty-first century,” Researchers from the National Centre for Scientific Research and the University of Grenoble admit to “an anomalous gain of mass” for the Karakoram glaciers.

This is in direct contradiction to the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, which claimed that ice from most of the region could disappear by 2035.  (See world-misled-over-melting-himalayan-glaciers/ )

Often considered a part of the Himalayas, the Karakoram range, which runs through Pakistan, India and China, is technically a separate chain that includes K2, the world’s second-highest peak.

Although there were wide variations between individual glaciers, the mass of the glaciers in this 2,168-square-mile (5,615-sq-km) area increased marginally. “Our measurements…indicate that the contribution of Karakoram glaciers to sea-level rise was −0.01 mm yr for the period from 1999 to 2008,” write the French researchers.

Huh? “The contribution to sea-level rise was MINUS 0.01 mm per year”? Sounds like Orwellian double-speak to me.

“Why this (the increase) should be is not clear,” writes BBC News environment correspondent Richard Black. “Though it is well known from studies in other parts of the world that climate change can cause extra precipitation into cold regions which, if they are cold enough, gets added to the existing mass of ice.”

Uh huh. First we’re told that global warming will melt all of the world’s glaciers and sea levels will rise catastrophically. Now, we’re being told that global warming will make the glaciers grow and contribute – in a minus sort of way – to sea level rise. Does that mean that sea levels will fall?

“We don’t really know the reason,” said lead researcher Julie Gardelle. “Right now we believe that it could be due to a very specific regional climate over Karakoram because there have been meteorological measurements showing increased winter precipitation; but that’s just a guess at this stage.”

Meanwhile, correspondent Black tries to convince us that the majority of Himalayan glaciers are growing. “Late last year,” says Black, “the Kathmandu-based International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (Icimod) released data showing that across 10 regularly studied glaciers, the rate of ice loss had doubled since the 1980s.”

“Ten regularly studied glaciers”? Make sure you caught that, because Mr. Black then begrudgingly admits that “these 10  intensively studied glaciers” are “among a total of more than 54,000.”

We’re spending billions upon billions of dollars to fight global warming based on 10 melting glaciers? Ten? Out of a total of more than 54,000?

What is wrong with our leaders?

As a matter of fact, the Himalayas have lost no ice in the past ten years. We’re talking about the greatest chain of ice-capped peaks in the world – from the Himalayas to Tian Shan on the border of China and Kyrgyzstan – and satellite measurements show that they have lost NO ice in the past 10 years.

Not only have they lost no ice, in a defiant act of political incorrectness, some 230 glaciers in the western Himalayas – including Mount Everest, K2 and Nanga Parbat – are actually growing.

“These are the biggest mid-latitude glaciers in the world,” says John Shroder of the University of Nebraska-Omaha. “And all of them are either holding still, or advancing.”

And get this. Eighty seven of those glaciers have surged forward since the 1960s.

But we don’t need to look to the Himalayas for growing glaciers. Glaciers are also growing in the United States. Yes, in the United States.

Look at California. All seven glaciers on California’s Mount Shasta are growing, including three-mile-long Whitney glacier, the state’s largest.

Farther north in Washington State, the Nisqually Glacier on Mt. Rainier is growing. The Emmons Glacier on Mt. Rainier is growing. Glaciers on Glacier Peak in northern Washington are growing. And Crater Glacier on Mt. Saint Helens is now larger than it was before the 1980 eruption.

Even farther north, the Juneau Icefield, which covers 1,505 square miles (3,900 sq km) and is the fifth-largest ice field in the Western Hemisphere, is also growing.

Are these growing glaciers also just “an anomalous gain of mass”? Well, let’s look at a few other countries.

  • Perito Moreno Glacier, the largest glacier in Argentina, is growing.
  • Pio XI Glacier, the largest glacier in Chile, is growing.
  • Glaciers are growing on Mt. Logan, the tallest mountain in Canada.
  • Glaciers are growing on Mt. Blanc, the tallest mountain in France.
  • Glaciers are growing in Norway, says the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate (NVE).
  • And the last time I checked, all 50 glaciers in New Zealand were growing. (The Franz Josef glacier is advancing at the rate of 4 to 7 feet per day!)

But these glaciers are babies when you look at our planet’s largest ice mass, namely, the Antarctic ice sheet.

Contrary to what you may have heard, this huge ice sheet is growing.

In 2007, Antarctica set a new record for most ice extent since 1979, says meteorologist Joe D’Aleo. Antarctic sea ice has also been increasing, on average, since 1980.

Think about that.

The Antarctic Ice Sheet, which is almost twice as big as the contiguous United States, is about 90 times bigger than all of the rest of the world’s glaciers combined.

Close to 90 percent of the world’s glaciers are growing, in other words, and all we hear about are the ones that are shrinking.

Welcome to the new ice age.

See entire Karakoram article:

See also:

See also:

See also:

See also:

Thanks to Brian Payne, Emma Corry, Marc Morano, Linda Binutti, Jason Hietanen, John the 1st, John McCullough  and Gordon Pratt for these links


16 thoughts on “Glaciers on Asia’s largest mountain range getting BIGGER”

  1. Uh huh. First we’re told that global warming will melt all of the world’s glaciers and sea levels will rise catastrophically. Now, we’re being told that global warming will make the glaciers grow and contribute – in a minus sort of way – to sea level rise. Does that mean that sea levels will fall?

    If glacier formation and or growth exceeds melting then it will have an impact on sea level. It will take time to drop the sea level by 130 meters though.

  2. You have to laugh. Its just so preposterous. No matter how many times the agw crowd gets smacked in the face with evidence that contravenes their position they always come back with the most weak minded rationalizations. These self hating humanists will go to any length to see their canon adopted.

  3. “Close to 90 percent of the world’s glaciers are growing, in other words, and all we hear about are the ones that are shrinking.”
    I’d add that, if the present trend continues, in a couple of years it will be 100% of the glaciers growing worldwide. The facts are on our side, all we have to do is to be patient. Even, some NASA employees are already starting to see the nonsense/non-science that GW is.

    • Patience is the key isn’t it? I just don’t want them to take down the world’s largest economy while we wait it out.

  4. Do you think they have a drawer of spare trousers n pants etc for when these retards ‘have accidents’ or ‘mess themselves’ during their ‘working day’? Do their mummy n daddy have to pick them up? Lmao!!!

  5. The rationalists theory goes as follows:

    1. A small temperature rise sees less snow at lower altitudes and more at higher altitudes.
    2. This means that, although termini of glaciers may retreat, the depth of ice at the tops of the glaciers may increase, thereby increasing their mass somewhat.
    3. The increased pressure due to mass increase will, in years to come, give the potential for glacier advance again.

    In other words, a cyclical self-correcting system is probably in place.

  6. The alarmists have been talking global warming and the melting of the ice as possibly being related to the numbers and sizes of earthquakes world wide, due to destressing, or whatever they want to call it, allowing the land to rise, so to speak. I wonder if the accumulation of ice in glaciers and at the icecaps are perhaps behind the increased activity instead?

  7. The key question is: What is the total Mass Balance of the world’s ice inventory (Antarctic + Arctic + Greenland + Glaciers) doing? Is it increasing or decreasing?

    The answer is: It is increasing. If it was decreasing, we would have already heard about it from from the Usual Suspects (Mann, Jones, Hansen, Thompson, et al)

  8. This purely anecdotal, but I found a recent photo of the toe of the Khumbu glacier that begins on Everest a few miles away, and found it was exactly where it was, and with the same apparent height, when I went trekking there 30 years ago. (I have pics)

    As for Sharon’s question above: you seem to assume that global temperature alone(if such a thing exists)determines glacier growth or decline, when numerous factors are at work, including local rainfall/snowfall. If you look around on the ‘net you can find glacier photos taken 70 years ago alongside recent ones and see how much they have grown.

    Try going to Bing images. Type “list of growing glaciers”.

  9. Also why are so many glaciers at Sea Level shrinking.

    The news were making a big deal of that one in the South Pole that is the size of Texas which broke off either last year or the year before making the climate panel real worried.

  10. Oops: Forgot the question mark in my haste.

    I am not tearing apart your site but a true scientists never *assumes* anything without reasonable data/proof.

  11. Glaciers in Glacier Bay, Alaska, have been retreating since 1780, and 90% of their retreat was before 1912. Since CO2 increases have only been significant since 1950, it is obvious that natural climate change caused the retreat.

    I doubt increased CO2 can change climate retroactively, although it’s true believers probably think so.

Comments are closed.