IPCC's Pachauri's "voodoo science" claim comes full circle

WUWT readers may recall that when the “Himalayan Glaciers will melt by 2035” error was first revealed, IPCC chairman Rajenda Pachauri famously labeled claims of the mistake “voodoo science”and then had to retract that slur later.

Now it appears there hasn’t been any melt at all in the last 10 years. I never thought I’d see this in the Guardian:

The discovery has stunned scientists, who had believed that around 50bn tonnes of meltwater were being shed each year and not being replaced by new snowfall.

The study is the first to survey all the world’s icecaps and glaciers and was made possible by the use of satellite data. Overall, the contribution of melting ice outside the two largest caps – Greenland and Antarctica – is much less then previously estimated, with the lack of ice loss in the Himalayas and the other high peaks of Asia responsible for most of the discrepancy.

Full story here

h/t to more people than I can name – Anthony

=================================================================

Looking at the plot of ice thickness changes from the GRACE data (from the NASA press release that spawned this story), it appears parts of the Himalayan area is actually gaining ice:

Changes in ice thickness map Changes in ice thickness (in centimeters per year) during 2003-2010 as measured by NASA’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites, averaged over each of the world’s ice caps and glacier systems outside of Greenland and Antarctica. Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/University of Colorado

› Full image and caption

Here’s a zoom in on India:

Average yearly change in mass, in centimeters of water, during 2003-2010, as measured by NASA’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites, for the Indian subcontinent. The dots represent glacier locations. There is significant mass loss in this region, but it is concentrated over the plains south of the glaciers, and is caused by groundwater depletion. Blue represents ice mass loss, while red represents ice mass gain.

Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/University of Colorado

UPDATE: Here’s the Univ. of Colroado press release:

303-492-8349

University of Colorado at Boulder

CU-Boulder study shows global glaciers, ice caps, shedding billions of tons of mass annually

Study also shows Greenland, Antarctica and global glaciers and ice caps lost roughly 8 times the volume of Lake Erie from 2003-2010

IMAGE:A new CU-Boulder study using the NASA/Germany GRACE satellite shows Earth is losing roughly 150 billion tons of ice annually.Click here for more information.

Earth’s glaciers and ice caps outside of the regions of Greenland and Antarctica are shedding roughly 150 billion tons of ice annually, according to a new study led by the University of Colorado Boulder.

The research effort is the first comprehensive satellite study of the contribution of the world’s melting glaciers and ice caps to global sea level rise and indicates they are adding roughly 0.4 millimeters annually, said CU-Boulder physics Professor John Wahr, who helped lead the study. The measurements are important because the melting of the world’s glaciers and ice caps, along with Greenland and Antarctica, pose the greatest threat to sea level increases in the future, Wahr said.

The researchers used satellite measurements taken with the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment, or GRACE, a joint effort of NASA and Germany, to calculate that the world’s glaciers and ice caps had lost about 148 billion tons, or about 39 cubic miles of ice annually from 2003 to 2010. The total does not count the mass from individual glacier and ice caps on the fringes of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets — roughly an additional 80 billion tons.

“This is the first time anyone has looked at all of the mass loss from all of Earth’s glaciers and ice caps with GRACE,” said Wahr. “The Earth is losing an incredible amount of ice to the oceans annually, and these new results will help us answer important questions in terms of both sea rise and how the planet’s cold regions are responding to global change.”

A paper on the subject is being published in the Feb. 9 online edition of the journal Nature. The first author, Thomas Jacob, did his research at CU-Boulder and is now at the Bureau de Recherches Géologiques et Minières, in Orléans, France. Other paper co-authors include Professor Tad Pfeffer of CU-Boulder’s Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research and Sean Swenson, a former CU-Boulder physics doctoral student who is now a researcher at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder.

“The strength of GRACE is that it sees everything in the system,” said Wahr. “Even though we don’t have the resolution to look at individual glaciers, GRACE has proven to be an exceptional tool.” Traditional estimates of Earth’s ice caps and glaciers have been made using ground-based measurements from relatively few glaciers to infer what all of the unmonitored glaciers around the world were doing, he said. Only a few hundred of the roughly 200,000 glaciers worldwide have been monitored for a decade or more.

Launched in 2002, two GRACE satellites whip around Earth in tandem 16 times a day at an altitude of about 300 miles, sensing subtle variations in Earth’s mass and gravitational pull. Separated by roughly 135 miles, the satellites measure changes in Earth’s gravity field caused by regional changes in the planet’s mass, including ice sheets, oceans and water stored in the soil and in underground aquifers.

A positive change in gravity during a satellite approach over Greenland, for example, tugs the lead GRACE satellite away from the trailing satellite, speeding it up and increasing the distance between the two. As the satellites straddle Greenland, the front satellite slows down and the trailing satellite speeds up. A sensitive ranging system allows researchers to measure the distance of the two satellites down to as small as 1 micron — about 1/100 the width of a human hair — and to calculate ice and water amounts from particular regions of interest around the globe using their gravity fields.

For the global glaciers and ice cap measurements, the study authors created separate “mascons,” large, ice-covered regions of Earth of various ovate-type shapes. Jacob and Wahr blanketed 20 regions of Earth with 175 mascons and calculated the estimated mass balance for each mascon.

The CU-led team also used GRACE data to calculate that the ice loss from both Greenland and Antarctica, including their peripheral ice caps and glaciers, was roughly 385 billion tons of ice annually. The total mass ice loss from Greenland, Antarctica and all Earth’s glaciers and ice caps from 2003 to 2010 was about 1,000 cubic miles, about eight times the water volume of Lake Erie, said Wahr.

“The total amount of ice lost to Earth’s oceans from 2003 to 2010 would cover the entire United States in about 1 and one-half feet of water,” said Wahr, also a fellow at the CU-headquartered Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences.

The vast majority of climate scientists agree that human activities like pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is warming the planet, an effect that is most pronounced in the polar regions.

One unexpected study result from GRACE was that the estimated ice loss from high Asia mountains — including ranges like the Himalaya, the Pamir and the Tien Shan — was only about 4 billion tons of ice annually. Some previous ground-based estimates of ice loss in the high Asia mountains have ranged up to 50 billion tons annually, Wahr said.

“The GRACE results in this region really were a surprise,” said Wahr. “One possible explanation is that previous estimates were based on measurements taken primarily from some of the lower, more accessible glaciers in Asia and were extrapolated to infer the behavior of higher glaciers. But unlike the lower glaciers, many of the high glaciers would still be too cold to lose mass even in the presence of atmospheric warming.”

“What is still not clear is how these rates of melt may increase and how rapidly glaciers may shrink in the coming decades,” said Pfeffer, also a professor in CU-Boulder’s civil, environmental and architectural engineering department. “That makes it hard to project into the future.”

According to the GRACE data, total sea level rise from all land-based ice on Earth including Greenland and Antarctica was roughly 1.5 millimeters per year annually or about 12 millimeters, or one-half inch, from 2003 to 2010, said Wahr. The sea rise amount does include the expansion of water due to warming, which is the second key sea-rise component and is roughly equal to melt totals, he said.

“One big question is how sea level rise is going to change in this century,” said Pfeffer. “If we could understand the physics more completely and perfect numerical models to simulate all of the processes controlling sea level — especially glacier and ice sheet changes — we would have a much better means to make predictions. But we are not quite there yet.”

###
0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

143 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
February 9, 2012 3:06 am

Which brings us back to this, and linked SciAm article that billions depend on glacier water was ‘hyperbole’
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/25/another-climate-fail-new-research-casts-doubt-on-doomsday-himalayan-water-shortage-predictions/
Scientific American: New Research Casts Doubt on Doomsday Water Shortage Predictions
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=research-casts-doubt-doomsday-water-shortage-predictions
extract:
“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.
——————–
Prime Minister Gordon Brown (copenhagen time)
“In 25 years the glaciers that provide water for 3/4 of a billion people will disapear entirely”

Harold Ambler
February 9, 2012 3:13 am

Fluctuations in glacier size are an outstanding way to scare the hey out of people, most of whom simply don’t know that such fluctuations have taken place before and are quite normal during interglacials. Most people also don’t know what an interglacial is, of course. If they did, and thought hard about the word, and about how fortunate they are to live during such a time, they would sleep better at night. Many thanks to all who have been supporting the cause of useful information versus the cause of terror, useful information being here: http://amzn.to/xam4iF

Jason
February 9, 2012 3:20 am

This isn’t going to just stun scientists. This will also stun my climbing friends and acquaintances who swear that they’ve see this first hand. I can’t wait, I envision a bowl of hemlock on my next trip.

TFNJ
February 9, 2012 3:22 am

What is being measured in northwest india, south of the glaciers? The caption says mass loss, in cm of water. Is erosion of rocks, measured in cm of water?

February 9, 2012 3:24 am

Some people forget that Dr. Pachauri is not a scientists. He trained as a railway engineer and then obtained a PhD in economics, which is not by any means a scientific study. He cannot by any criteria be viewed as a climatologist. He also gains from any carbon trading or green energy through business connections within his family.
He is not a fit man to be chair of the IPCC.

Jack Savage
February 9, 2012 3:24 am

Expect a full-on assault on the data!

D Boon
February 9, 2012 3:26 am

Same for Antarctica; loss on the peninsula, slight gain on the rest of the continent (plot on their website).

February 9, 2012 3:40 am

Although this provides yet another of Trenberth’s reverse onus tests of hypothesis, it frightens me. Global cooling, which seems to be occuring, is a “bad thing”. Global warming is a “good thing”. As those in Europe are discovering to their dismay, cold kills and kills quickly. The problem with being a skeptic is the inevitable pyrrhic victory is manifest in the type of change that will be expensive to adjust to and detrimental to humanity with or without adjustment. The example here: Glaciers grow as less snow melts and downstream water availability drops.

AGW_Skeptic
February 9, 2012 3:50 am

The alarmists nearly succeeded with the hoax. Consider this…
Bogus papers (pal reviewed) and the IPCC scare the populace into drastic taxes and reductions of personal freedoms. After the fraud and the penalties are enacted, reports begin to surface that the oppression is working. Taxes are saving the environment.
Look how the glaciers have been saved. Temperature rise has been averted. Severe weather events have subsided. Sea level rise has halted. More taxes and government control must continue for further improvement.
Scary how close they came to pulling it off! Long live ClimateGate.

Michael Reed
February 9, 2012 3:52 am

Okay, all you ice observers out there. Consider these two quotes from the Guardian article:
Prof John Wahr of the University of Colorado said: “People should be just as worried about the melting of the world’s ice as they were before.”
Bristol University glaciologist Prof Jonathan Bamber, who was not part of the research team, said: “The new data does not mean that concerns about climate change are overblown in any way.” He added: “Taken globally all the observations of the Earth’s ice – permafrost, Arctic sea ice, snow cover and glaciers – are going in the same direction.”
So what’s up with that? Is the earth’s ice melting or not. Should I be worried or not?

pesadia
February 9, 2012 4:00 am

“But ther is still serious consern”
They just cannot resist minimising any good news.
Ther certainly is serious concern but it is related to the quality of climate science rather than non-melting glaciers.

Latimer Alder
February 9, 2012 4:00 am

Yes – even to publish such stuff must have caused much anguish at the grudina. But they managed t find a few stooges to reiterate that this shocking news did nothing to diminish concern about global warming and the usual irrelevant tosh about 1.5 billion people getting their water from rivers that start in the Himalayas
I also note that their moral courage didn’t extend so far as to invite comments under their ironically titled ‘Comment is Free’ (aka ‘Komment macht Frei) policy.

pesadia
February 9, 2012 4:01 am

Also some concern about my spelling “there” “Concern”

David Bailey
February 9, 2012 4:10 am

I feel cautiously optimistic that papers like the guardian are willing to run stories like this. The BBC also seems to have eased its censorship a little recently.
Perhaps these news outlets can see the end of the AGW scam is close, and they need to start to change their stance!

rc
February 9, 2012 4:12 am

“The discovery has stunned scientists”
There we have it, climate scientists are stunned (not enlightened) when the data doesn’t match the model.
Surely they can fix the data.

Harriet Harridan
February 9, 2012 4:12 am

Couldn’t have anything to do with the lack of warming in the lower troposphere could it? 🙂 I think Christie and Spencer are due (several) apologies from the warmistas.

February 9, 2012 4:14 am

But, but, but … only this morning, the newspaper told me that satellites have measured sea level rises of 12mm/year due to melting ice.

February 9, 2012 4:16 am

There are no glaciers south form Ganges river, or..?

Cliff Maurer
February 9, 2012 4:18 am

Damian Carrington reports the NASA finding that “the contribution of melting ice outside the two largest caps – Greenland and Antarctica – is much less than previously estimated”. But the estimate of annual ice loss for Greenland and Antarctica is more than 400 cu km per year (averaged over longer than 7 years) compared with less than 200 cu km per year reported by the same source in 2008. What explains the discrepancy?

February 9, 2012 4:36 am

Rajendra Pachauri is to me a climate vampire, he sucks out all the science from a research leaving it gasping for air.

Alexej Buergin
February 9, 2012 4:39 am

For those who understand a little bit of german here is one of Angela Merkel’s genius-advisors, Schellen-Huber, explaining that “it is easy to calculate that the Himalaya ice will be gone by 2035”.

(Schellnhuber is the pompous, Rammsdoof the arrogant one.)

February 9, 2012 4:41 am

From the Nature article: “The total contribution to sea level rise from all ice-covered
regions is thus 1.4860+/-26mmyr-1”
From the Guardian article: “His team’s study, published in the journal Nature, concludes that between 443-629bn tonnes of meltwater overall are added to the world’s oceans each year. This is raising sea level by about 1.5mm a year, the team reports, in addition to the 2mm a year caused by expansion of the warming ocean.”:
Satellite observations of sea level rise for the study period (January 2003 to December 2010) show a rise of about 14mm-or about 2mm per year (see http://sealevel.colorado.edu/).
Given the GRACE study is on the mark, this appears to indicate there has been only 3.5 mm of rise (only 0.5mm per year) that can be attributed to expansion of the ocean due to warming. In other words there has been very little warming of the ocean over this time period. Seems this is also supported by the Argo data that shows ocean warming has flat lined since the early 2000’s.
Or have I missed something?

MikeH
February 9, 2012 4:45 am

Get ready for all of the But, But, But.. Look at North and South America!!! Look at Iceland! That WAY overshadows the Himalayas! Right idea, wrong glacier. comments…
Not wanting to listen to the fact that documented changes in a lot of these areas has been going on for 150 years or more (Alaska for example)..
But I will ask, the banter back and forth about Greenland was that the glaciers were receding (AGW) but the icepack was getting thicker (Skeptic). Greenland is mostly neutral, loss at the northern colder area, any ideas?

Pete in Cumbria UK
February 9, 2012 4:48 am

It says…..
….rated over the plains south of the glaciers, and is caused by groundwater depletion. Blue re…. My bold.
Would that explain the observed and relatively trivial ‘Global Sea Level Rise’, where exactly did that groundwater go?
So, if we take away the effects of UHI and also try to remove the effects of recent (50, 60,70 years) land use changes, is there an underlying planetary cooling trend?
Do we REALLY have something to worry about?

February 9, 2012 4:58 am

Hmmm. No word on this from the hyperactive tweeter Richard Black of the BBC. No comment yet on the BBC science stories. You can bet your life that if the results had been in the alarmists favour this would have been the top story of the day…

1 2 3 6