Himalayan glaciers

**Andre** · Nov11-09, 01:15 PM

The government of India did some extensive research on studies about the Himalayan glaciers and published a discussion paper here.

From the executive summary:

Background to Glacier Monitoring

Almost a century ago (!!), fears began to be expressed about the possible impact of the rise in atmospheric temperature on mountain glaciers. The fears led to the initiation of concerted scientific efforts to identify and examine the fluctuations along the front-snout of glaciers. It was believed that such studies, over the next century or so, would enable scientists to establish the relationship between the climate change and the glacier fluctuations.
...
Himalayan glaciers, although shrinking in volume and constantly showing a retreating front, have not in any way exhibited, especially in recent years, an abnormal annual retreat, of the order that some glaciers in Alaska and Greenland are reported
...
It is premature to make a statement that glaciers in the Himalayas are retreating abnormally because of the global warming. A glacier is affected by a range of physical features and a complex interplay of climatic factors. It is therefore unlikely that the snout movement of any glacier can be claimed to be a result of periodic climate variation until many centuries of observations become available. While glacier movements are primarily due to climate and snowfall, snout movements appear to be peculiar to each particular glacier.

Before hitting the complaint button, maybe note that the statements in the discussion paper are based on either published data, and/or peer reviewed material and moreover on the cover:

The views expressed in this Discussion Paper are not necessarily endorsed by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India.

This series is meant to serve as a basis for informed debate and discussion on critical
issues related to the environment.

**sylas** · Nov11-09, 05:53 PM

Originally Posted by Andre

Before hitting the complaint button, maybe note that the statements in the discussion paper are based on either published data, and/or peer reviewed material and moreover on the cover:

Then THAT should be your reference for this forum; not the discussion paper. The discussion paper is obviously not a valid reference for the forum. With good reason!

This "discussion paper", is written by one individual. The paper has a few references of its own; but none of them make the same claims, as far as I can tell. The claims in the discussion paper are idiosyncratic and absurd, and in sharp conflict with genuine scientific literature, which is what you are required to be citing.

I WILL be reporting this, unless a mentor input arrives in the meantime. It's obviously inappropriate for the forum. I don't mean that as an attack on you personally, though, Andre! You have become frustrated at the requirements given in this subforum, but they are here with good reason. I'm posting this in the interim in an effort to try and help show why such a requirement has been given. This is a contentious topic and there is a lot of complete nonsense written about it. To try and maintain the intended focus of physicsforums, it has become necessary to insist people do stick to claims that are given directly in peer reviewed scientific literature. The discussion paper is no such thing.

Cheers -- sylas

**Andre** · Nov11-09, 06:16 PM

That's okay I have started reporting as well.

Maybe it would help if some examples could be discussed to substantiate:

The claims in the discussion paper are idiosyncratic and absurd, and in sharp conflict with genuine scientific literature, which is what you are required to be citing.

Moreover the discussion paper is a review:

Himalayan Glaciers
A State-of-Art Review of Glacial Studies,
Glacial Retreat and Climate Change

At what point does the reviewing of the reviewers who review stop? Why not review and discuss it here?

And the news is not that uncommon

there are some conflicts, also mentioned here.

**sylas** · Nov11-09, 07:27 PM

I take it back about reporting this thread. I think it may devolve into a useful discussion about the nature and reason for the guideline, which may be a discussion we have to have. Sigh.

Originally Posted by Andre

That's okay I have started reporting as well.

I think that is a good idea. A report can help avoid stuff spilling over into the thread and give mentors a chance, if necessary, to help clarify to individuals the nature of guidelines; whether it be to the person making the report or the author of a reported post.

For my own part, I try to keep reports limited to stuff that I think is pretty obvious, as I don't want to overload mentors or make the guideline application oppressive.

There is a guideline that has been worked out, and the reasons for it are pretty clear, and I think we should all try to stick by it.

I'm just making this comment here briefly; I'll speak some more to the point shortly.

Cheers -- sylas

**Evo** · Nov11-09, 08:10 PM

We don't have any hard, set in stone rules in this forum.

The guidelines are

Controversial claims must be supported by evidence that comes from a scientific, peer-reviewed journal or a similarly reliable source, i.e., unsubstantiated claims are not allowed.

If someone thinks something is controversial, then they would have to substantiate that article, paper, etc... has itself been deemed controversial. Then they can ask the poster to provide supporting evidence from a reliable or peer reviewed source.

**sylas** · Nov11-09, 08:59 PM

Originally Posted by Evo

We don't have any hard, set in stone rules in this forum.

Scope for a bit of common sense here is good. Here's what I think... and this is just my own thought; comment from others is welcome.

There was evidently a particular need to make a special guideline statement for the Earth science forum. It appears at present as a locked and sticky thread by the forum owner, made about this time last year, as follows:

Originally Posted by Greg Bernhardt, in "New ES Policy", 20 Dec 2008

Controversial claims must be supported by evidence that comes from a scientific, peer-reviewed journal or a similarly reliable source, i.e., unsubstantiated claims are not allowed.

I am not privy to the discussions leading up to this special subforum guideline, but I suspect it came about mainly because this forum is where climate discussions take place, and these discussions are particularly notorious. The guideline is, in my opinion, intended to help keep the discussions here in line with the overall physicsforum global guideline:

Originally Posted by Greg Bernhardt, in "Physics Forums Global Guidelines", 3 Sep 2003

Overly Speculative Posts:
One of the main goals of PF is to help students learn the current status of physics as practiced by the scientific community; accordingly, Physicsforums.com strives to maintain high standards of academic integrity. There are many open questions in physics, and we welcome discussion on those subjects provided the discussion remains intellectually sound. It is against our Posting Guidelines to discuss, in most of the PF forums or in blogs, new or non-mainstream theories or ideas that have not been published in professional peer-reviewed journals or are not part of current professional mainstream scientific discussion. Personal theories/Independent Research may be submitted to our Independent Research Forum, provided they meet our Independent Research Guidelines; Personal theories posted elsewhere will be deleted. Poorly formulated personal theories, unfounded challenges of mainstream science, and overt crackpottery will not be tolerated anywhere on the site. Linking to obviously "crank" or "crackpot" sites is prohibited.

The restriction in Earth science is expressed just a little bit more strongly. It means that you are actually not allowed to make controvertial claims without appropriate backing. It's not just a case of asking for support; the support should be there from the start.

You can ask for support in a following post, of course; but the guideline does actually say that the support must be there from the start. A bit of common sense about what is "controvertial" should apply here as well. The idea that this has to be "substantiated", I think, should not usually be necessary.

I don't think we want to encourage a situation where threads get into a long exchange of "lawyering", a thread being started, then one poster adding an objection, then another demanding evidence that something really is controvertial, and then the first demanding evidence that something actually has evidence, and then the evidence being posted, and so on and on and on. I think Evo's understanding of the guideline posted above does potentially have a problem in this regard.

The way the guideline as expressed by Greg is worded, all this seems to be avoided very nicely. Unsupported claims are not allowed from the start! The support has to be credibly from the peer reviewed scientific literature or a reasonable equivalent; not newspapers, or blogs, or wikipedia, or private essays, or someone's website, or whatever.

Am I wrong about this?

Cheers -- sylas

**Andre** · Nov11-09, 09:12 PM

Now let's try to see it from a different point of view. This is an official white paper issued by the India government, containing basically the presentation of a set of data which can be verified from the sources. Then this data is used to generate a point of view.

Now the first thing a government would do is making perfectly sure that the data are right, especially when the subject is controversial, because anyone can check it and many most certainly will scrutinze it. The last thing that a major country is aiming for is being accused of spreading misinformation together with clear evidence of such a misconduct.

The second part, interpretation of and speculation about the data is something that can be discussed, can be endorsed or rejected, distanciated or accepted.

But this goes not the for the data, glaciers advance, stagnate or retreat in time. That can be verified like it can be verified that water boils at 100C or 373K or 212F.

So maybe it's better to demonstrate where the government of India is spreading misinformation.

**Evo** · Nov11-09, 09:12 PM

Originally Posted by sylas

Unsupported claims are not allowed from the start!

Yes, if they are known to be already documented "unsupported" claims. Assuming the information is "unsupported" is wrong.

The support has to be credibly from the peer reviewed scientific literature or a reasonable equivalent; not newspapers, or blogs, or wikipedia, or private essays, or someone's website, or whatever.

Am I wrong about this?

Yes, this is what we prefer. Rather than point to a peer reviewed article in someone's blog, we would prefer that you find and link to the original paper.

However, in this instance, it's not a newspaper article, or personal blog, or a wikipedia entry.

I have to question why you would have considered reporting this particular posting, and apparently without having read it.

It's not our intent to prohibit reasonable discussions.

I, for one, think a paper on Himalayan Glaciers put forth by the Indian government for discussion would be an intersting topic to discuss. If it turns out to be crackpotttery, then it can be deleted. So far, it's an interesting read.

**sylas** · Nov11-09, 10:25 PM

Originally Posted by Evo

I have to question why you would have considered reporting this particular posting, and apparently without having read it.

Because I had read it, or at least downloaded and skimmed it; and also I was aware of some of the other discussions going on about this already even before this thread appeared. I did honestly consider, in good faith, that the original post was a problem in line with the guidelines and worth passing on to mentors for their consideration. As I said, I don't want to overload you guys, so I do try to be sensible about this; but my thoughts were in good faith and were certainly not made in total ignorance of the matter.

I am inclined to object to your remark, frankly. I don't see any basis for saying I "apparently" hadn't read it! In fact, I couldn't possibly have written what I did in msg #2 had I not already obtained the paper and looked over it.

I'll comment more on this specific issue itself shortly, with specific reference to the merits of the case in question.

The rest of this post is not about this specific case, but continues to be generally about guidelines.

-----

My understanding of the guideline is that we should avoid having a thread that starts right off the bat by basing discussion on something from a blog, a newspaper, wikipedia, a website, or an essay. But I appreciate that this is potentially disputable. I think we may have a potential problem with people getting around the clear intent of the guideline by not making an explicit claim in their post, and saying that they are only posting issues or questions or discussion.

The alternative is that I am wrong about the clear intent of the guideline, of course! I do think Andre is working here in good faith and I don't mean this as an attack on him personally. But I do think it would be useful to clarify this matter of applying the guideline.

I, for one, think a paper on Himalayan Glaciers put forth by the Indian government for discussion would be an intersting topic to discuss. If it turns out to be crackpotttery, then it can be deleted. So far, it's an interesting read.

Without commenting as yet on this particular issue, I note that there is a general problem of lots of material which is very poor quality. The guideline is not intended simply to remove crackpottery, as I understand it. It is rather intended to keep the discussion about ideas in the mainstream of science, as described in the extracts I have shown from the global forum guidelines. It is not only crackpottery which conflicts with the guideline, so let's not raise the bar too far, or imply that any criticism corresponds to labelling something as crackpottery. I have not used that word here, and it is not a word I would have chosen.

I think when starting a new thread, particularly on a matter which is controversial, there should right from the start be a clear basis explicitly from peer reviewed literature or appropriate equivalent; just to show that the discussion is indeed going to be on matters within "the current status of physics as practiced by the scientific community".

Cheers -- sylas

PS. (added in edit) I also disagree strongly with this remark from Evo:

Originally Posted by Evo

Yes, if they are known to be already documented "unsupported" claims. Assuming the information is "unsupported" is wrong.

There should be no assumption about it. The guideline as worded puts the onus in completely the other direction. It is NOT an onus of others to demonstrate that information is "unsupported". The onus is clearly on the person making the claim, right from the start, to give it along with appropriate support from the mainstream of scientific discourse.

I would very much like to hear from other mentors on this one! I do know that there are disagreements between mentors, and that is normal. It seems to me that the interpretation by Evo given above is completely backwards, and reverses the intended meaning of the guideline as expressed by Greg. I understand the guideline to put the onus on someone making controvertial claims, to give explicit mainstream scientific support at the same time.

I don't mean this as an attack on Evo, of course. It's an honest disagreement. But I think she's wrong here.

Cheers -- sylas

**Evo** · Nov11-09, 10:57 PM

I think when starting a new thread, particularly on a matter which is controversial, there should right from the start be a clear basis explicitly from peer reviewed literature or appropriate equivalent; just to show that the discussion is indeed going to be on matters within "the current status of physics as practiced by the scientific community".

No, peer reviewed material is not a requirement and not a restriction, it is not a restriction or requirement in any other forum.

just to show that the discussion is indeed going to be on matters within "the current status of physics as practiced by the scientific community".

This isn't physics, this is a very new field of climate science where models are created, predictions made, the models found to be wrong, the predictions found to be wrong, back to the drawing board, new models, new predictions. There is no comparison.

You apprently feel very strongly about your beliefs, that's great, just do not sit in judgement of information that you disagree with. If you can show the information you disagree with is wrong, good. I will be waiting to read the errors you found with the site Andre posted.

**NileQueen** · Nov12-09, 08:42 AM

sylas: "I don't mean this as an attack on Evo, of course. It's an honest disagreement. But I think she's wrong here.

Cheers -- sylas "

Evo is reasonable; you aren't.

Science needs free discussion to resolve the many unresolved issues, and you are clearly a threat to open discussion. From your point of view, it has to be the World According to Sylas. Your control freak behavior resounds in this forum. Stop trying to choke the discussion, and don't say Cheers when you don't mean it. It's an offense to any geologist.

**sylas** · Nov12-09, 09:19 AM

Originally Posted by NileQueen

sylas: "I don't mean this as an attack on Evo, of course. It's an honest disagreement. But I think she's wrong here.

Cheers -- sylas "

Evo is reasonable; you aren't.

Science needs free discussion to resolve the many unresolved issues, and you are clearly a threat to open discussion. From your point of view, it has to be the World According to Sylas. Your control freak behavior resounds in this forum. Stop trying to choke the discussion, and don't say Cheers when you don't mean it. It's an offense to any geologist.

I think it is unfortunate that the debate has taken this personal direction. The fact is, I DO mean what I have said. I have no problem with discussing different views and I do it frequently.

I am, however, in strong agreement with the Earth science forum guidelines. The guidelines have been quoted, and they clearly DO put some constraints on discussion. The idea is not simply to stifle disagreements, but to keep discussion directed on the various competing ideas which are all a part of conventional mainstream science.

I do mean cheers. Really. Disagreement over our understanding of the meaning of the guidelines is not animosity at all. Neither is there any reason to take offense -- just as I don't take offense at those who disagree with me.

I think what really damages free and open discussion is animosity, and taking offense those who hold different views to what you do. That applies equally to discussion of the substantive issues around climate, and also to the discussion of the guidelines under which we are all expected to operate.

Cheers -- and yes, I DO mean it, honestly -- sylas

**Andre** · Nov12-09, 04:51 PM

Maybe we should have another look

Originally Posted by sylas

Then THAT should be your reference for this forum; not the discussion paper. The discussion paper is obviously not a valid reference for the forum. With good reason!

Apparantly the good reasons are following:

This "discussion paper", is written by one individual.

So were the GR and SR papers. What is the problem here?

The paper has a few references of its own; but none of them make the same claims, as far as I can tell.

How far is that? there are 19 references, many of them are to the complete proceedings of workshops and symposiums. It is obvious that claims are less transparant that way but proceedings are retraceable and it is possible to check the claims.

The claims in the discussion paper are idiosyncratic and absurd, and in sharp conflict with genuine scientific literature, which is what you are required to be citing.

So I did that in my second post (maybe click the links this time):

Originally Posted by Andre

And the news is not that uncommon

there are some conflicts, also mentioned here.

Demonstrating that a fair deal of the Himalayan glaciers is either not retreating or it's retreating has slowed down, which is also contended in the Indian white paper. Hence the statement....

The claims in the discussion paper are idiosyncratic and absurd, and in sharp conflict with genuine scientific literature,

..... could easily be interpreted as misinformation, if not worse.

Now the guidelines.

Originally Posted by Greg

New ES Policy

Controversial claims must be supported by evidence that comes from a scientific, peer-reviewed journal or a similarly reliable source, i.e., unsubstantiated claims are not allowed.

First of all, my previous own quote demonstrates that advancing glaciers in the Himalayas has been observed by scientific, peer-reviewed journals. Hence it is not a controversial claim and the policy is not violated if it was regardless who, who claimed it.

But even if it was a controversial claim, what gives any PF member the authority to judge if a official government white paper, is not a 'similarly reliable source'. Remember I said in another post:

Originally Posted by Andre

Now the first thing a government would do is making perfectly sure that the data are right, especially when the subject is controversial, because anyone can check it and many most certainly will scrutinze it. The last thing that a major country is aiming for is being accused of spreading misinformation together with clear evidence of such a misconduct.

The second part, interpretation of and speculation about the data is something that can be discussed, can be endorsed or rejected, distanciated or accepted.

But this goes not the for the data, glaciers advance, stagnate or retreat in time. That can be verified like it can be verified that water boils at 100C or 373K or 212F.

So maybe it's better to demonstrate where the government of India is spreading misinformation.

Edit: In addition to that, in the Dutch Governement the worst political crime is misinformation, if in paper like that it turns out that parliament and population has been deliberately misinformed, that would cost the political life of the responsible authority. Is there any reason to expect differently from another democracy?

So concluding, the claims of the white paper are not controversial and dismissing it as a reliable source without any substantiated reason is obviously backfiring. So, there was a very good reason why I said:

Originally Posted by Andre

...Before hitting the complaint button, maybe note ...

And Evo was perfectly right.

**Xnn** · Nov12-09, 08:07 PM

It is therefore unlikely that the snout movement
of any glacier can be claimed to be a result of periodic
climate variation until many centuries of observations
become available.

The above impresses me as just an lazy excuse.
A 100 years of observations isn't enough?
Only in an ideal world do we all have an
infinite set of high precision data. However,
that doesn't mean we can't draw conclusions.
Considers the following drawn in the same paper:

1. Glaciers in the Himalayas (India) have been
exhibiting a continuous secular retreat since the
earliest recording began around the middle of the
nineteenth century. Kumdan glaciers, of the Upper
Shyok valley, have been the only exception for their
periodic fluctuations.

A continuous secular trend!
Only 1 exception out of roughly 10,000.

2. Kumdan glaciers of the Upper Shyok valley have
been recognised as surging glaciers with a periodic
cycle of around 40 to 50 years for the three phase
activity of surging:

OK, some glaciers are known to surge.
Must be some interesting reason for it, but none is suggested.

3. All the glaciers under observation, during the
decade of 70-90, showed a cumulative negative
mass balance. There were a few years, when one or
two glaciers showed a positive balance or very low
negative value, but the over all cumulative balance,
over an observation period of ten years, for each
glacier, continued to be negative.

Some years a few glaciers exhibit a positive balance,
but over longer periods of time, all observed glaciers
are losing mass. I guess the 00 decade isn't over yet,
but there isn't much in the report to suggest it will
be different.

4. Annual snow precipitation, during the
accumulation season, is the parameter primarily
responsible for the glacier having either a positive
or a negative balance.

It's precipitation (as opposed to temperature) that is the
deciding factor. However, please note that global warming
does not necessarily mean less precipitation. So, it's
somewhat surprising that there has been a continuous
secular retreat of glaciers all the while.

Anyhow, the IPCC regional projections show a decrease
in DJF precipitation in central India with an increase
in the portion of China just to the north. The model
are fairly course and do not show the Himalayans precisely.
So, it would seem that the extreme northern Himalayans
might expect an increase in precipitation (and temperature).
The projections are different during JJA. Chapter 11, page 883.

5. A glacier, so far as the snout is concerned,
does not respond to immediate changes in the glacier regimen.
A positive mass balance does not necessarily lead to glacier
advance and the negative balance to glacier retreat.

The snout is just the tip and it's movement is not a direct
reflection of mass balance. So, an advancing Himalayan
may be losing mass at the same time. Big mistake to draw
conclusions based solely on movement of the snout,
especially over the short term or in the case of surging glaciers.

The only problem with Himalayans is that they do not have
the several hundreds of years of observation that are typical of the Alps.
Of course almost everything is retreating as might be expected.
But, they (form some odd reason) can't be too sure about what normal is.
Of course, this won't stop a denialist from drawing silly conclusions.

**sylas** · Nov12-09, 08:10 PM

Andre, thanks for returning to the focus on the substance. I think it is good to have this aired, and I appreciate that you are engaging in good faith. A couple of brief points.

White paper or discussion paper?

First, this isn't a "white paper" at all. It is a "discussion paper". There is a major difference. A discussion paper is produced by an individual, for the purposes of discussion. A "white paper" is a more authoritative statement of policy from the government. This particular discussion paper was written by Vijay Kumar Raina. Raina has good scientific credentials, but this particular paper is not a scientific paper and has not had formal review either as a government report, or as a peer-reviewed scientific article.

The second page of the paper states very prominently:

The views expressed in this Discussion Paper are not necessarily endorsed by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India. This series is meant to serve as a basis for informed debate and discussion on critical issues related to the environment.

My understanding of the guidelines has been informed in particular by input from Monique, who is one of the mentors charged with particular oversight of this subforum. For example,

Originally Posted by Monique, in locking another thread earlier this year

We don't discuss papers in detail that are not published in peer-reviewed journals.

Now I appreciate the point by Evo that the guidelines are just that: guidelines, and not set in stone. The above is a decision made on a different case, and it doesn't automatically apply here. What the guideline actually says is:

scientific, peer-reviewed journal or a similarly reliable source

In my own opinion, a discussion paper, such as this one, is not in this category; and it would be better to have some other reference given explicitly.

Himalayan glaciers

It's well established that glaciers are affected by a range of factors, and that some glaciers are advancing while others are retreating. In the Himalayas in particular, although most glaciers are currently in anomalously rapid retreat, some glaciers are actually advancing.

References:

Kulkarni, A.V. et. al. (2007) Glacial retreat in Himalaya using Indian Remote Sensing satellite data, in Current Science, Vol 92, No 1, 10 Jan 2007. From the final page of the article, giving conclusions:
The investigation has shown overall 21% reduction in glacial area from the middle of the last century. [...] Numerous investigations in the past have suggested that glaciers are retreating as a response to global warming. As the glaciers are retreating, it was expected that tributary glaciers will detach from the main glacial body and glaciologically they will form independent glaciers. Systematic and meticulous glacial inventory of 1962 and 2001 have now clearly demonstrated that extent of fragmentation is much higher than realized earlier. This is likely to have a profound influence on sustainability of Himalayan glaciers.

[...]The observations made in this investigation suggest that small glaciers and ice fields are significantly affected due to global warming from the middle of the last century. In addition, larger glaciers are being fragmented into smaller glaciers. In future, if additional global warming takes place, the processes of glacial fragmentation and retreat will increase, which will have a profound effect on availability of water resources in the Himalayan region.
Fowler, H. J. and Archer, D.R. (2006) Conflicting Signals of Climatic Change in the Upper Indus Basin, in Journal of Climate, Vol 19, Iss 17, Sept 2006, pp 4276-4293, doi:10.1175/JCLI3860.1. This paper documents some of the exceptions to the overall trend of retreat. Here's an extract from the abstract:
The impact of observed seasonal temperature trend on runoff is explored using derived regression relationships. Decreases of ∼20% in summer runoff in the rivers Hunza and Shyok are estimated to have resulted from the observed 1°C fall in mean summer temperature since 1961, with even greater reductions in spring months. The observed downward trend in summer temperature and runoff is consistent with the observed thickening and expansion of Karakoram glaciers, in contrast to widespread decay and retreat in the eastern Himalayas. This suggests that the western Himalayas are showing a different response to global warming than other parts of the globe.
Thomas, K. and S.C. Rai (2005). An Overview of Glaciers, Glacier Retreat, and Subsequent Impacts in Nepal, India and China, Kathmandu, World Wildlife Fund Nepal Programme. This is a fairly comprehensive reference which stands as an example of something that is not in a peer reviewed journal, but which IMO reasonably stands as a credible equivalent. It is a compilation of three official country reports, and has considerable editorial oversight. It is cited by other papers that are in regular scientific journals.

There's nothing particularly controversial about noting individual cases of advance or retreat, or noting that there is more involved than temperature.

The conventional view, however, is that global warming of the twentieth century has had a strong impact on glaciers in the Himalayas, driving a strong trend of net retreat and loss of ice, well above what is normal.

There's nothing wrong with giving alternatives to conventional view. That's critical to how science works, and I have no problem with discussing alternative views, or views I think are in error. However:

We are not actually doing the science research here ourselves, but discussing what is done by working scientists.
A study of an individual glacier is not a refutation of the conventional view. For example, some glaciers in the Karakoram (western Himalaya) are increasing. They stand out as an exception to the overall trend, and Fowler and Archer (2007) above suggest that the increase in this case is a consequence of local changes in the Indian monsoon.
It would be better, in my view, if we could use a "scientific, peer-reviewed journal or a similarly reliable source" (per the guideline) explicit in the thread as the basis for discussion of alternative views. In my own opinion, the cited discussion paper is not in that category.

Cheers -- sylas

**Xnn** · Nov12-09, 08:14 PM

PS: Skyok Valley is in the extreme North of India!

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sour...,28.256836&z=5

Looked it up after making comment about precipitation patterns.