
Himalayan glacier melting doubled since 2000, spy satellites show - ciconia
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/19/himalayan-glacier-melting-doubled-since-2000-scientists-reveal
======
terminalhealth
This is really happening, right?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis)

~~~
neuronic
It is still controversial [1]. However, newest data on permafrost melting
suggests that we will find out the validity of this hypothesis quite a bit
sooner than expected.

[1] [https://doi.org/10.1146%2Fannurev-
environ-102017-030154](https://doi.org/10.1146%2Fannurev-
environ-102017-030154)

------
ceejayoz
Syria's population was about 20 million people before their civil war, with
about 5 million of those becoming external refugees. That prompted a refugee
crisis.

Climate change on the subcontinent is going to make that seem like a tiny
dribble.

------
adrianN
> _The accelerating losses indicate a “devastating” future for the region,
> upon which a billion people depend for regular water._

And this is with just one degree increase of average global temperatures.
Politicians do nothing to limit heating to two degrees or less, as per the
Paris agreement. Global GHG emissions are still rising.

~~~
bayareanative
It would cost around about as much spent on the pointless military
genocides/cash grabs in Middle East to return CO2 to pre-Industrial levels
(290 ppm ± 10). CCS at scale is proven. There's no political will and
omnicide/suicide is the de-facto majority policy.

~~~
hutzlibu
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources ...

(for sure the money spend on the wars would have been better spend on green
tech, but ... I think the amount of money to change the whole industry to
preindustrial exhaust levels ... is a bit higher)

~~~
adrianN
US primary energy consumption: ~30 trillion kWh/year. You can probably cut
this at least in half when switching to renewables because of power plant
inefficiencies.

Wind power: ~1500 Euros per kW (solar is similar)

1 kW of Wind power produces at most 8760 kWh per year, lets add some
inefficiencies and say 3000 kWh per year. So you'd need 5 billion kW of wind
power

So you'd need 7.5 trillion Euros. The Iraq war cost about 1.1 trillion dollars
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War)).

Given that this is just napkin math, it is surprisingly in the same ballpark.

~~~
hutzlibu
And how is that bringing us back to "preindustrial CO2 levels"?

There are some more contributers to CO2 than plants. Also, cars? Also, energy
storage?

Also non scaleable of wind?

...

So yes, it was just napkin math. Not helpful.

~~~
adrianN
Primary energy consumption includes all forms of energy. Electricity, but also
fuel, heating, etc. If you make it fully renewable the country becomes pretty
much carbon neutral, save for things like metallurgical coal.

Energy storage raises cost a bit, but not too much, depending on the quality
of the electric grid. You don't very much storage if your grid is good because
it's always windy somewhere. Excess energy can be converted to Methane via
power-to-gas and stored in the existing strategic gas storage facilities.

Better informed people than me wrote long papers about this, and also looked
into scalability issues. It's a bit hard to reproduce in HN comments.

~~~
hutzlibu
Trust me, I am informed on that topic.

And I am all for a green Energy base. And there are countless other options
than just methan or hydrogen for storing energy around or in develepoment.

But it is still hard and expensive. Did you factor in redesigning of the
energy grid? Renewables need much more flex .. the current system is designed
for huge plants, giving constant energy, not many small ones fluctating. Did
you factor in, replacing all gasoline engine in cars? Did you factor in
designing and replacing airplane engines? (And with what, running then on
hydrogen? maybe. Would be awesome, but the tech does not exist yet)

And even if we achieve 100 renewable ... there are still lots of industrial
processes that release CO2, like concrete production, that reaching
preindustrial CO2 levels is a very, very hard and therefore expensive
challenge. So maybe be careful with your claims.

------
akshayB
Lot of areas in north eastern parts of India does not have any big
infrastructure and dams for water storage because they heavily relied on water
coming from Himalayan glaciers. In future if Indian government does not do big
projects to develop water storage it will be a huge problem to sustain big
population.

~~~
akshayB
I also find it super interesting on how US government would monitor natural
resources of other countries for decades without anyone knowing about it

~~~
ceejayoz
They weren't actively doing so. Scientists just used the declassified photos
as data for a modern analysis.

> The scientists combined declassified US spy satellite images from the
> mid-1970s with modern satellite data to create the first detailed, four-
> decade record of ice along the 2,000km (1,200-mile) mountain chain.

> The spy satellite photographs used in the research had lain unused in
> archives for some years. But a computer tool developed by Maurer and
> colleagues enabled these 1970s photos to be turned into 3D maps.

You can be damned sure they monitor some natural resources, like oil. Water's
probably on the list now, too.

------
raxxorrax
People living on the correct side of mountains are probably situated pretty
well compared to people in shallower regions where rainfall will become rarer.
Parts of Africa currently have some of the worst droughts ever. These are the
regions the we will probably loose first.

A while ago I was certain that we could need more hydroelectric power
stations... well, if the rainfall can replace melt water...

------
DiabloD3
[https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global-
snow/201902](https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global-snow/201902)

NOAA indicates that the global ice levels are increasing, and ice is growing
in areas that previously did not host such a large amount of ice before, ie,
the ice is moving to new locations as the climate changes.

This is mostly related to the increase in variability of NAM and SAM (as in,
the increasing change of the jet streams from their usual positions) due to
decreased solar heating of the Earth.

[https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/solar-activity-forecast-
fo...](https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/solar-activity-forecast-for-next-
decade-favorable-for-exploration)

NASA has predicted that the solar cycle starting this year, or the next cycle,
is highly likely starting another grand minimum and will last for at least the
next few cycles; this is the lowest activity in 200 years (or since the
previous grand minimum).

The previous grand minimum was the Dalton minimum, and lasted from 1790 to
1820, and lasted 30 years, and was considered mild based on what we know of
previous grand minimums. During the Dalton minimum, the "Little Ice Age"
occurred, which lead to massive crop losses in Europe and North America,
including unusually long and wet springs that delayed the planting season
(just like this year).

So, I'm going to consider this Guardian article at least partially debunked.
Although this is a disaster for the Himalayan region, NOAA and NASA's
interpretation of the data does not favor the rather opinionated and biased
language in the article.

~~~
graeme
I looked at your NOAA link. I could be mistaken, but I think it said the _snow
cover_ extent increased.

Ie was there snow on the ground in a given area. Snow that melts come spring.

This isn’t ice. Is there something in your link that suggests _ice_ is
growing? The sea ice portion showed it to be shrinking.

You’re claiming new glaciers are forming somewhere, basically.

Your timeline of the Maunder minimum is completely wrong. This doesn’t lend
confidence to your interpretation of the NASA report:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum)

~~~
seandougall
Yeah, the NASA article says, "it will be the weakest of the last 200 years."
It does not say, "it will last 200 years". Those missing words between "will"
and "last" are rather crucial.

