Melting glaciers are NOT ‘accelerating climate change’
The Blaisen glacier in Norway. Image: Lee Brown
On March 15th, Sky News carried an article on its’ website entitled ‘Melting glaciers could be accelerating climate change by causing more carbon emissions, say researchers’. It boldly asserts that ‘The process has been measured in six mountain ranges across the world – Austria, Ecuador, France, New Zealand, Norway and the US.’
It continues:
The melting of the world’s mountain glaciers could be releasing damaging carbon emissions into the atmosphere and accelerating climate change, researchers have said.
Experts believe the “unexpected form of climate feedback” means global warming is driving glacier loss and “rapidly” recycling carbon in rivers.
The process has been measured in 57 rivers in six mountain ranges across the world in Austria, Ecuador, France, New Zealand, Norway and the US.
The melting of mountain glaciers continues to accelerate at an unprecedented rate, with climate change predicted to drive continued ice loss.
As global warming speeds up the loss of glaciers, downstream rivers have warmer temperatures and are less prone to sediment movement and variable water flow.
The researchers, led by the University of Leeds, said this is creating favourable conditions for fungi to thrive.
The fungi living in the rivers then break down organic matter such as plant leaves and wood, eventually leading to the release of carbon dioxide into the air.
It is the first time a link has been established between glacier-fed mountain rivers and higher rates of plant material decomposition, which is a major process in the global carbon cycle.
Lead author of the study, Sarah Fell of Leeds’ School of Geography and water@leeds, said: “We found increases in the rate of organic matter decomposition in mountain rivers, which can then be expected to lead to more carbon release to the atmosphere.
“This is an unexpected form of climate feedback, whereby warming drives glacier loss, which in turn rapidly recycles carbon in rivers before it is returned to the atmosphere.”
As part of the research, teams used canvas fabric strips to mimic plant materials that accumulate naturally in rivers.
The fabric was left in the rivers for about a month and then tested to see how easily they could be ripped.
The strips ripped more easily as aquatic fungi colonised them, showing that decomposition of the carbon molecules happened more quickly in rivers which were warmer because they had less water flowing from glaciers.
The findings were mostly funded by the Natural Environment Research Council and have been published in Nature Climate Change journal.
Firstly, I would like to know exactly what is meant by ‘damaging’ carbon emissions. Then, we see the so-called ‘expert’ is qualified in geography not climate science.
Secondly, the article promotes the false assumption that carbon dioxide controls our temperature, and thirdly, the study mentioned was published in Nature Climate Change, which ONLY publishes articles that support the theory that human activity is causing the planet to heat up as if it is proven beyond doubt.
The key line is “We found increases in the rate of organic matter decomposition in mountain rivers, which can then be expected to lead to more carbon release to the atmosphere.” Notice the use of the word ‘expected‘. This means that they have yet to see any such effect, they just assume it will happen, believing the ‘greenhouse effect’ is real and proven.
According to Wikipedia, the Natural Environment Research Council ‘delivers independent research, survey, training and knowledge transfer in the environmental sciences, to advance knowledge of planet Earth as a complex, interacting system. The council’s work covers the full range of atmospheric, Earth, biological, terrestrial and aquatic sciences, from the deep oceans to the upper atmosphere, and from the geographic poles to the equator.
NERC’s mission is to gather and apply knowledge, create understanding and predict the behaviour of the natural environment and its resources, and communicate all aspects of the council’s work.’
I wonder if the NERC is aware their funding was used to promote a lie on a scale unprecedented in human history.
See more here: news.sky.com
Earth’s atmosphere weighs 5700 trillion tons. 78% of the atmosphere is nitrogen, 21% is oxygen. The remaining 1% is the trace gases, of which carbon dioxide is one, at 0.04%.
Anyone who believes a gas of less than a tenth of one percent is controlling our temperature, needs to look up at that big yellow thing in the sky, and at this illustration –
About the author: Andy Rowlands is a university graduate in space science and British Principia Scientific International researcher, writer and editor who co-edited the new climate science book, ‘The Sky Dragon Slayers: Victory Lap‘
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Chris
| #
There was a big screw up here. They contradict themselves in this statement: “The strips ripped more easily as aquatic fungi colonised them, showing that decomposition of the carbon molecules happened more quickly in rivers which were warmer because they had less water flowing from glaciers”. If the glaciers were melting then more cold water would be flowing into the rivers, not less. It appears from this statement that the air temperature in the area is decreasing allowing the rivers to be warmer as less near freezing water the glacier is entering the rivers. So if they are trying to show a connection between global warming and co2 well they just suggested that the more co2 that is being released is cooling the atmosphere in the immediate area.
Reply
Andy
| #
Very good point Chris!!
Reply
Doug Harrison
| #
These are the children of “Woke” and the truth is of no interest to them. They will contradict themselves all day and be happy that what they conclude is accurate.
Unfortunately commenting on this rubbish just serves to give it the air of publicity. While I admire the work you do in these pages, Andy I think this nonsense is best ignored.
Reply