Barry Woods writes via email:
Previously: (at Copenhagen) Prime Minister Gordon Brown said:
“In 25 years the glaciers that provide water for 3/4 of a billion people will disapear entirely”
Now: Himalayan Glaciers (and others) New Research Casts Doubt on Doomsday Water Shortage Predictions
Some great quotes from various scientists in Scientific American:
He agreed that overstatements about the impacts are rampant in the Himalayas as well, saying, “The idea that 1.4 billion people are going to be without water when the glaciers melt is just not the case.
From the Andes to the Himalayas, scientists are starting to question exactly how much glaciers contribute to river water used downstream for drinking and irrigation. The answers could turn the conventional wisdom about glacier melt on its head.
Yet, scientists complain, data are often inaccurately incorporated in dire predictions of Himalayan glacial melt impacts.
Creeping hyperbole?
“Hyperbole has a way of creeping in here,” said Bryan Mark, an assistant professor of geography at Ohio State University and a researcher
Mark said he expects to find that the impact of monsoon water is greatly underestimated in the Himalayas.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Sending these links along. Thank you!
Here is a mainstream paper of last year. Yangtze, Yellow and Ganges are most important in terms of population.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5984/1382.abstract
Science 11 June 2010:
Vol. 328 no. 5984 pp. 1382-1385
DOI: 10.1126/science.1183188
[blockquote]
Abstract
More than 1.4 billion people depend on water from the Indus, Ganges, Brahmaputra, Yangtze, and Yellow rivers. Upstream snow and ice reserves of these basins, important in sustaining seasonal water availability, are likely to be affected substantially by climate change, but to what extent is yet unclear. Here, we show that meltwater is extremely important in the Indus basin and important for the Brahmaputra basin, but plays only a modest role for the Ganges, Yangtze, and Yellow rivers. A huge difference also exists between basins in the extent to which climate change is predicted to affect water availability and food security. The Brahmaputra and Indus basins are most susceptible to reductions of flow, threatening the food security of an estimated 60 million people.[/blockquote]
I thought that the bulk of water used in India and surrounding countries came from snow melt not glacier melt.
“In the Indus, they found, the meltwater contribution is 151 percent compared to the total runoff generated at low elevations.”
How does that work??
Did Gordon Brown say that?
Let me put you non UK readers in the picture.
Gordon Brown was Dr Watson to Tony Blair’s Sherlock Holmes.
Tony’s perfectly honed intuition told him that Climate Change was one to get behind…harness the vote of caring, greenish, left leaning, middle class people and have powerful lobby groups eating out of your hand – for research funding, technical innovation grants, carbon capture schemes and of course…nuclear power. He saw it for the revenue raising opportunity it has become.
But the thing about Gordon Brown is that being dense, he hadn’t noticed that the moment had passed…you can bet that when he said it…
‘in 25 years the glaciers what provide water for 1/4 million people will melt.’
he imagined that it would fire up some loyalty and excitement, cement his green creds…like it did for Tony all those years before!
Oh dear.
They were a right pair!
I’d have thought the biggest impact would be if the glaciers start to lengthen again and there is a reduction in snow melt.
The bulk of india water comes from monsoon…
http://www.imdpune.gov.in/mons_monitor/all-India.gif
John Marshall says:
October 25, 2011 at 3:16 am
I thought that the bulk of water used in India and surrounding countries came from snow melt not glacier melt.
It would be nice if someone were to calculate the amount of water carried into India by the annual monsoons. Compare that to the amount of water generated when the glaciers melt.
This article http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jgr/2011/765248/
says:
No mention of glacier melt as a significant contributor to India’s agriculture.
Didn’t the British at one time run India? Didn’t they notice the monsoon season? Why don’t they remember what they saw while they were there?
Prime Minister Gordon Brown said:
“In 25 years the glaciers that provide water for 3/4 of a billion people will disapear entirely”
That’ll teach him to believe what the IPCC say. They said the glaciers would be gone by 2035 if I recall correctly. Others can peer review my statement. It’s all voodoo to me.
Build reserviors. Problem solved.
Is that the very same Peter Gleik who was dissing Ms LaFramboise’s little tome a little while ago?
charles nelson says:
October 25, 2011 at 3:46 am
The funniest double-act in recent years, although as a self-employed person I didn’t laugh that much. Gordon Brown, he of “just 50 days to save the world” fame, I seem to also recall! 🙂
Why did the people at Copenhagen believe Gordon Brown? No one in Britain did and that is why he is out of power brooding away in Fife.
So is this how the scientific fight back will progress?
Step by step.
The CAGW hegemony will be taken down, as bricks individually from a wall?
Nice.
Keep it up, Mr Watts. Keep the little tear aways from the mask of ideological environmentalism (which does our beautiful planet no favours) coming.
The Bear claps big fluffy paws …
Whatever the water source, current C02 levels produce 10% to 15% more food with the same water then they would in a 280 PPM world, so once again, while the harm of CO2 is another unrealized hypothetical, the benefit is not disputable.
‘mizimi says:
October 25, 2011 at 3:30 am
“In the Indus, they found, the meltwater contribution is 151 percent compared to the total runoff generated at low elevations.”
How does that work??
‘
Lets use analogy: Lets say you need 100 USD a day to survive. You earn 150 USD a day. You have 150 percent of what you need.
Gee if the BEST results are correct why the hell are the SST’s currently the coldest on Satellite record? What Baloney!
“aaron says:
October 25, 2011 at 4:10 am
Build reserviors. Problem solved.”
Exactly my thoughts and few hydro stations on the Ganges to get cheap power.
The only way to bring down CAGW or climate change is now to get a small enough population within a country to still believe it is a big problem and this will probably take decades. The reason is that like in Australia’s case the politicians do not want to lose that vote which still represents 30% or so of the population. So in Australia’s case our conservative opposition which probably like the population has a simular belief level will not make it the parties policy even though the majority don’t think it is a big problem. Another tactic might be (I hope) to get into power first and then change your mind and this could accelerate the decline of alarmism.
To Anthony Watts if you ever read this millions of people appreciate what you are doing so Thank You, but hope you are patient.
The same Gordon Brown, non-UK readers, who, when Chancellor of the Exchequer (and against advice), sold half our gold reserves in the late 1990’s when gold was $200/ounce.
Smart move, eh..??
Oh well, whilst we’re at it – The same Gordon Brown who like his not so chmmy pal Tony, said how concerned they both were that people weren’t putting enough away for their retirement/old age, then promptly proceeded to raid private pension funds each year to the tune of billions! What a guy!
It is not possible for glacier/snow melt to contribute significantly to the river flow in India. The catchment areas of the major rivers is enormous while the area above the snow line is only a small proportion of that area. The monsoons provide a huge quantity of water, far far more than the small amount that gets deposited as snow in the high mountains.
Clouds have no effect on climate, so the rain from them can be ignored.
David says:
October 25, 2011 at 5:34 am
The same Gordon Brown, non-UK readers, who, when Chancellor of the Exchequer (and against advice), sold half our gold reserves in the late 1990′s when gold was $200/ounce.
Smart move, eh..??
It is if you want to use the money for your own advantage while you are still in power. All that gold doesn’t do Brown any good as he can’t use it. Once converted to $$, it is much easier to spend. The fact that it is now lost to the British people, well that is the sacrifice they have to make. Politicians as a lot tend to feel that sacrifice is a good thing when made by the common people, and a bad thing when made by the ruling class.
The far East has so much water that has nothing to do with glaciers that they would adapt nicely and barely notice the difference. Focusing on glacier melt is pure scare tactics without merit.
I have spent a year in Thailand and have never before or since seen as much rain as in a monsoon.
Take the heaviest rain I have seen in the USA and triple it and let it go on for months and you have some idea of a monsoon.
A level field is turned into a lake in weeks and kids are paddling boats where it had been dry land before.
I remember running from the bus to the O club and getting so wet that I couldn’t have gotten wetter by jumping in a swimming pool fully clothed. I walked the rest of the way.
I’ve never understood why disappearing glaciers is a problem.
If the glaciers stop receding, then they cannot provide water. If they disappear they also no longer provide water. They are similar to a damn, they cannot provide water they can only store it and their net effect is zero.
I never understood the claim that glaciers have been supplying drinking/irrigation water. The only way for that to happen is for the glaciers to have been in constant retreat since the time humans started relying on the river water.
For the glacier to supply water it has to melt, pretty simple concept. But if the retreat of the glaciers is only a recent phenomenon then where did the water come from before? Could it be that the annual snow on the glaciers melts and runs into the river while the glaciers themselves remain relatively stable? And if so the even a complete removal of the glaciers will have no effect on the water supply, since the water is just melting snow.
Now if the snow fall decreases or the temperature increases and more of the snow falls as rain (with immediate runoff rather than delayed melting), then obviously that will have an effect. But the existence or non-existence of the glaciers will not change the situation.