Calling Everest the "third pole" dates back about 100 years to the golden age of exploration in the early 20th Century.

The North and South Poles received their first visits from humans in the early 1900's, and the hardest remaining spot to reach on Earth--the summit of Everest--was colloquially named "the third pole" since the challenges to reaching it were in some ways similar to reaching the geographic poles. See for example:

> The attempted ascent was – notwithstanding other aims – an expression of the pioneering thinking that was common in the British Empire. As the British were unsuccessful as the first to reach the North and South Poles they tried to go to the so-called "third pole" – to "conquer" Mount Everest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1922_British_Mount_Everest_exp...

The term has today been adapted for discussions of climate change because of the commonality of ice. It's a poor fit IMO since the impacts of melting ice at the North Pole, South Pole, and Himalayas are all significantly different from one another: the North Pole primarily impacts wildlife and navigation, the South Pole global sea level rise, and the Himalayas fresh water availability in South Asia.

Yeah I was also wondering whats happening here. The article states that the region stores ~15% of the earth's water in ice, so it has similar consequences as the poles melting, but its completely distinct from magnetic poles

Hate to be that guy but metaphors and allusions are okay?

Also it would be nice if The Guardian could state that this is an article about the Himalaya somewhere in the title or the abstract.

It's used as a metaphor to signify the vast quantities of ice deposited on the Himalayas.