Decreasing amounts of snow in the Himalayas

himalayaOne of the most worrying consequences of climate change is the decreasing amounts of snow. At the end of winters, snow melts and  thus brings water to billions people during the drier seasons.

Thus the snow of the Himalayas brings water to nearly 1.5 billion people, a quarter of Mankind. As climate change increases dramatically in Asia, there is less and less snow, and thus water.

Today’s article will bring you data on this fact and how the phenomenon is increasing. I wanted to investigate this after Al Gore’s speech in Poznan.

Here is a short extract of this speech:

We cannot negotiate with the consequences of unrestrained dumping of 70 million tons of global warming pollution into the thin shelf atmosphere surrounding our planet every 24 hours.

Scientists have for several years now warned us that we are moving dangerously close to several so-called tipping points that could within less than 10 years make it impossible to avoid irretrievable damage to the planet’s habitability for human civilization unless we act quickly.

As many of you here know full well, in virtually all of the mountain ranges of this planet, the glaciers are now melting rapidly in the Alps in the Andes in the Rockies and most ominously in the Himalayas which contain number 100 times as much ice and snow of all of the mountains here in Europe.

The leading Chinese scientist who studies ice, professor Yao Tandong calls the Tibetan plateau the water tower of Asia.

As you know it feeds the great rivers of Asia, the Indus, the Ganges, the Brahmaputra, the Salween and the Irawati, the Mekong, the Yangtze and the Yellow. 1.4 billion people depend for more than half of their drinking water on the rivers and spring systems that flow from the ice of the Tibetan plateau which is now melting at an alarming rate.

Strategic_Framework_15_September 1_08.indd

Here is a map of this region, which exemplifies well this :

Source: International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development, ICIMOD (direct link)

Furthermore, a current exposition in several cities brings us more data. To Reuters UK :

The International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD), which organised the “Himalaya – Changing Landscapes” exhibit, aim to highlight the impact of climate change on the world’s highest mountain range.

“Warming in the Himalayan region has been much greater than the global average and the rising temperatures are leading to rapid melting of the glaciers,” said the Kathmandu-based ICIMOD, which studies the people and environment in the Hindu Kush-Himalaya regions.

(…) Experts say global temperature increased by an average of 0.74 degrees Celsius (33.3 Fahrenheit) over the past 100 years.

ICIMOD says the impact of climate change was especially evident in the region with the largest concentration of snow and ice outside the two poles.

The photographs, on display since late last week, show a striking visual impression of how climate change and glacial melting were affecting the region.

A 50-year-old photograph of the Imja glacier in the Everest region shows an impressive layer of ice and several ponds. But by 2008, those ponds grew and merged, forming the Imja lake which risks bursting its natural dam.

ICIMOD Director General Andreas Schild said the changes were alarming and need immediate action. “Scientific evidence shows that the effects of globalisation and climate change are being felt in even the most remote Himalayan environments,” he said.

“Signs are visible, but there is very little in-depth knowledge and data available from the Himalayan region.”

Another picture of Mount Ama Dablam showed the recession of more than a hundred metres of ice. Slopes once covered with ice are now barren rock.

For more, please check out:

6 thoughts on “Decreasing amounts of snow in the Himalayas”

  1. Pingback: Toward a new world war because of climate change? Part II :: Sustainable development and much more

  2. “0.74 degrees Celsius (33.3 Fahrenheit)”
    If the Earth temperature rose 33.3 degrees Fahrenheit by CO2 we’d be dead by CO2 poisoning long before it did such. Yeah, I can practically throw out your source, and your article for emphasizing such a statement. This isn’t like some easy to miss mistake, it’s a glaring duh that that isn’t right.

    I call BS anyways. None of it shows proof of correlation, and doesn’t actually stand to a thing called science anyways…

    “There is less and less snow, and thus water.”
    No, there is very small decrease in snow. Quite blowing it out of proportion. First off, there will always be snow and ice… We will die from the other causing of any environmental doomsday scenarios FAR before it gets hot enough to actually melt even a sixteenth of it.
    Second, there is a INCREASE of water. As the small amount of snow that is indeed being melt, is causing more water.

    You lack an understanding as well, if it doesn’t come down as snow, it will come down as water. And sense the people depend upon a BUILD UP, it actually doesn’t matter in which form it comes. The only problem they are facing is that their natural dams are getting too full. They have an abundance of water.

    Al Gore is a bloody moron. He doesn’t actually know much about climate. He only uses and twists information to make money. If he really cared, his actions would show he did. I don’t think I need to point out his hypocrisy to you.

  3. oh, a denier ! It’s too rare a treat not to be noticed.

    There may be an increase of water globally but this is due to the fact that it will rain more in rainy countries (France, Canada…) and less in already dry countries.

    Then, of course the fact that the IPCC – folks with real degrees working for the United Nations – say that climate change is real musn’t change your mind. If they do so, it’s to push for a global government that will take our liberties away. I read that from one of your fellow denier. It both makes me laugh and cry at the same time.

    Oh, to conclude with my answer, I may point you out to my answer to climate change deniers.

    Edit: my good friend and first commenter here, Kiashu, may would like to point you to this…

  4. Denier? Let’s get this straight. I’m not a denier of climate change. I’m a denier of CO2 global warming.

    But for this case, “increase of water globally”, no, there is an increase of water the HIMALAYAS. I wasn’t talking about globally, your bloody source article says it. Yeah, near the end. They’re NOT in risk of less water, their in risk of too much. If you weren’t aware, the Himalayas would be a wet area as you said.

    I wasn’t arguing a case against climate change, I was arguing the case against this article. I was arguing against the misinformation and lack of scientific correlation.

    Let’s deal with Kiashu’s source… if you can even call it that. Let’s outright say it, it’s trash. Let’s take every little argument he has first. Does it have any scientific calculations? No. Does it involve intense number crunching? No. It involves GRAPHS. And that’s… well… it. Oh, except for the large distortion of the data to make the arguments. Most often by scale. Nearly all the data is outdated, ignoring years after 1998 when the huge increase was caused by El Nino. Not to mention that I can poke a whole in every argument there, and many users with comments have. And it of course ignores the a BASIC principle of statistics, correlation does not cause causation. Sure, graphs help, when you have actual calculations to back it up. And that’s all a CO2 claimer has going for them. Scaled graphs. Calculations? Bah, who needs actual scientific calculations.

    You want to know the real problem? That people think things are black and white. Do you honestly believe that CO2 is the only thing causing everything bad to happen in the world? No. It is because people have been mislead on knowing how greenhouse gases work. They think it’s like a blanket, it’s not. It absorbs radiation, not trap it in. How about we stick to the real threats: deforestation, our disappearing rain forests, species disappearing, over-hunting, overfishing, overpopulation of humans, pollution of plastics (I mean, that new plastic landmass in the Pacific must do something to temperature…), air pollution (CO2 is not a pollutant), water crisis… so many things, yet all overshadowed by a fake and pathetic hoax.

    I mean, we terraform our land to make it habitable and act shocked when the climate changes? Look, the world doesn’t hinge upon the amount of CO2 in the air, especially not 0.000300% of air with it (the increase of CO2, 300ppm). Sure, that amount makes a small contribution, but it doesn’t RULE everything. In fact, we can calculate the contribution:

    That site not only has the calculations, but the main site has up to date temperature statistics and graphs, even separated into each part of the sphere and channel splits.

    But here, your website and answer to climate change deniers is weak. Let me show you a real one:
    And yes, my argument still conquered all of their arguments as you can see in the comments, just the simply asking for proof in calculations, will not be given. Precisely because, it proves the opposite, that CO2 is not the monster we fear it as.

    And yes, we should try to restrict our usage of it. I’m simply saying, we have many more and often greater problems, and we are doing nothing about it because everybody is only paying attention to CO2. I for one am for decreasing air pollution (CO2 isn’t an air pollutant), which of course will also decrease CO2. How about a real battle, stop destruction of rain forests immediately. A win win no? Trees suck CO2, their increased height catch sunlight and keep surface temperature cooler… It will also drastically decrease specie extinction of rain forest species, and so forth.

    And let’s make this clear. I say Earth’s temperature increase is caused by hundreds of little things (CO2 included, but only a little). Global warming claimers say it’s done by a single source. Which is reasonable, really? When it comes right done to it, yes, the global warming by CO2 stance is a very unreasonable claim.

  5. That’s right. Don’t respond. Ignore it. Ignore it like countless of others, it’s all better as long as you for sure know CO2 is the problem, that we don’t have to do more, ignore it so you can continue to spew BS and live in your happy world where only CO2 is the enemy.

    Keep calling people who actually know how to look at things subjectively deniers. Keep calling people who know correlation does not cause causation ignorant. Keep ignoring the countless of people who actually have a clue that climate isn’t caused by one thing.

    The question I pose, is why?

  6. Thanks for leaving such a heated comment.

    of course there is not only CO2, there are also CH4 and many others. But to what I read from all the scientists of the IPCC and so on,CO2 is the main culprit…

    Oh, please, next time you want to leave a comment, be civil and be a minimum polite. It’s not because you are defending another point of view than the majority of people that you have to be arrogant.

    (I seriously hesitated to delete all your comments. But, well, I believe in free speech)

    If I didn’t answer to your second comment it may be because of lack of time or whatever. Or perhaps that I didn’t want to argue.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: