WUWT readers may recall that the IPCC famously claimed (using fake data) that Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035. That date later turned out to be a blunder of epic proportions, requiring a retraction. Now, the results of a new study show that most of the two thousand Himalayan glaciers monitored are in a steady state compared to the results of other studies carried out for the period prior to 2001.
Bahuguna et al.: Are the Himalayan glaciers retreating?
Abstract: The Himalayan mountain system to the north of the Indian land mass with arcuate strike of NW–SE for about 2400 km holds one of the largest concentration of glaciers outside the polar regions in its high-altitude regions. Perennial snow and ice-melt from these frozen reservoirs is used in catchments and alluvial plains of the three major Himalayan river systems, i.e. the Indus, Ganga and Brahmaputra for irrigation, hydropower generation, production of bio-resources and fulfilling the domestic water demand. Also, variations in the extent of these glaciers are understood to be a sensitive indicator of climatic variations of the earth system and might have implications on the availability of water resources in the river systems.
Therefore, mapping and monitoring of these fresh water resources is require d for the planning of water resources and understanding the impact of climatic variations. Thus a study has been carried out to find the change in the extent of Himalayan glaciers during the last decade using IRS LISS III images of 2000 /01/02 and 2010/11. Two thousand and eighteen glaciers representing climatically diverse terrains in the Himalaya were mapped and monitored. It includes glaciers of Karakoram, Himachal, Zanskar, Uttarakhand, Nepal and Sikkim regions. Among these, 1752 glaciers (86.8%) were observed having stable fronts (no change in the snout position and area of ablation zone), 248 (12.3%) exhibited retreat and 18 (0.9%) of them exhibited advancement of snout. The net loss in 10,250.68 sq km area of the 2018 glaciers put together was found to be 20.94 sq km or 0.2% (2.5 % of 20.94 sq km). […]
The results of the present study indicate that most of the glaciers were in a steady state compared to the results of other studies carried out for the period prior to 2001. This period of monitoring almost corresponds to hiatus in global warming in the last decade. It may happen that an interval of one decade could be smaller than the response time of glaciers to be reflected in terms of any significant change with 23.5 m spatial resolution of data. This point requires further studies using high-resolution data for a longer interval of time.
Full paper here: Current Science April 2014 (PDF)
h/t to The GWPF
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
We are ,of course, frequently told by he warmists that a warmer atmosphere allows more moisture to be held, which would lead to more snow fall at altitude and therefore advancing glaciers. Nothing is disprovable in the world of cagw alarmism.
To be fair, it looks like more are retreating than advancing. But ~80% stable is a far cry from “sky is falling” rhetoric.
Fine print IPPC report.
“There has been no universal trend in the overall extent of drought across the continental U.S. since 1900,” the authors observe. We also learn that “trends in severe storms, including the intensity and frequency of tornadoes, hail, and damaging thunderstorm winds, are uncertain and are being studied intensively.”
Around the world in 9 cold days.
In fact i am thinking of emulating Jules Verne and traveling the world in 80 cold days.
May 9th – Three Navy Planes Crushed By Snow
The U.S. Navy lost three P-3C Orion maritime patrol/anti-submarine aircraft in Japan after unusually heavy snowfall
Up to two feet (60 cm) of snow for Colorado
Lake Louise Ski Resort breaks yearly snowfall record
Five feet of snow on Argentina-Chile border
Gander snowfall records broken for May 5 and May 6
Peru facing harshest winter in a decade
Sydney, Australia – Coldest start to May in 73 years
Continuing snowfall in Archangelsk, Russia
Blizzard in Moscow – Residents “caught unawares”
Snowfall paralyzes traffic in Irkutsk region
Winter storm warnings for Nevada and Montana
Purdue – Snowiest winter since 1885
Canberra – “Unusually cold start to the cooler months”
Snow and blizzard in Brasov and Harghita County
One to two meters of snow in Cordoba Malargüe
Great Lakes ice cover could lead to chilly summer
Water pipes in Winnipeg restaurant remain frozen for almost two months
Cars rescued from heavy snow in Argentina
Ice piled 12-feet deep on shores of Lake Superior
Unexpected snowfall destroys 2,000 hectares of crops in Adjara
May 1st – Snowfall to hit Petrozavodsk
What is not likely well known is that the Himalayan glacier melting error was “disappeared” from the NASA Climate Change Evidence webpage in the dark of one Saturday night in January of 2010. NASA included it here on Jan 11th: http://web.archive.org/web/20100111005057/http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence
But it was gone by Jan 30th: http://web.archive.org/web/20100130181424/http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence . Probably the only time in history our crack gov’t scientists burned the midnight oil in the “Ministry of Truth” to erase one of those embarrasing “facts about the climate that are beyond dispute”!
It was on Jan 20th that the IPCC admitted the error: https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/science-public/ipcc-admits-himalayan-glacier-error , quietly ignoring Pachuri’s previous claims that those pointing out the error were practicing “voodoo science”.
I think you will find that they have not yet adjusted the data.
This is worse than we thought, the authors might lose their government grants for a report like this. Can’t they adjust the data?
richard says:May 10, 2014 at 4:37 am
As of now, a bit over an hour since you posted, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Nevada and Utah have Winter Weather Advisories, and although Colorado only has Winter Weather Warnings, it is presently snowing above 7000′, with rain below that.
You have to ask yourself why it took the IPCC so long to correct the ‘mistake’ in the 2007 report? Apparently they were warned that the 2035 figure was wrong by the lead IPCC author Georg Kaser months before publication. Yet the IPCC ignored the warning, published it and proceeded to call it a ‘mistake’. It was not a mistake, it was sleight of hand to encourage alarmism.
When doubted by the Indian govenment department of environment he accused the Indian government of issuing and “arrogant statement“. He also used the words “voodoo science”.
Here is the voodoo and arrogance at the IPCC.
So HImalayas melting – nope mostly stable!
Bee Decline – nope
http://acsh.org/2014/02/bee-be…
“Furthermore, according to a 2010 report by the United Nations Environment Programme, except for a dip around 1990, bee colony populations have been steadily rising since 1960”
Polar bears- nope.
Intelligence decline – yes.
I’m afraid so. It’s due to a nasty parasite that infects a certain section of the word’s population. Be aware, some of the many symptoms are a desire to travel, hold useless meetings in hot countries, make everyone else feel guilty about traveling or running big cars. Tell third world countries they cannot use fossil fuels.
cont…
The desire to run around in circles shouting denier( this one can be confused with Myxomatosis in rabbits ) more research is needed on this one.
There was a report produced by Dr. Vijay Raina in 2009. This was dismissed by Pachari as “voodoo science”. Here is the report’s summary.
Why might this be? Bear in mind the IPCC’s claim that human influence has increased on the climate system since the 1950s.
It’s ironic that all the Himalayan glacier melt of the past helped Bangladesh GAIN land mass for over 3 decades. But it will soon be gone due to rising sea levels and rising levels of alarm. 😉
http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0902/full/climate.2009.3.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7532949.stm
Ok. Name two glaciers (actually one glacier but it has split into two and about to re-join) that have been growing and advancing rapidly since 1980 but the glaciers are located inside an active volcanic crater. IMPOSSIBLE! You say. Nah. It’s true. Thickness of the ice with embedded rocks of approximately 650 ft thick with 1.5 miles of ice caves and passage ways.
What is the name of this volcano and the glacier(s)?
[Cross-posted at Bishop Hill]
Retreating glaciers (or sea ice) are, in any case, not dispositive of global warming. Melting may be due to black carbon deposition.
Also, I vaguely recall that the 2035 was, possibly, the result of a transposition error from study that claimed disappearance of trhe Himalayan glaciers by 2350. That would be approximately be the result of an annual retreat of 0.2% (per year).
To get a better feel for trends and fluctuations in glacier extents worldwide, check out Jean Grove’s work. I recall one of her figures showing that the last round of glacier retreats worldwide commencing around the mid-1800s, which would be broadly consistent with black carbon, solar fluctuations, as well as greenhouse gas emissions being contributing factors.
I’ve read claims (sorry can’t find a link) that the 2035 date in the IPCC report (for the end of Himalayan glaciers) was just a typo, it was meant to be 2350. Has anyone got time for some sleuthing to check out that claim?
Climatedepot says the 2035 date came from an unpublished report promoted by the WWF.
It looks like the 2035 date in the IPCC reports DID come directly from “grey” (non peer-reviewed) literature:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18363-debate-heats-up-over-ipcc-melting-glaciers-claim.html
So who is telling porkies about a typo of 2350?
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/47413/scandal-rocks-climate-panel-glaciers.html
“Critics argue that the IPCC report was based on three documents – a 2005 report on glacier by the World Wide Fund for Nature, a 1996 UNESCO document and a New Scientist news report. None are peer reviewed.
The WWF report cited the New Scientist news in which a British journalist interviewed Indian glaciologist Syed Hasnain who made this claim. When the same journalist re-interviewed Hasnain in 2009, he admitted that it was only a speculation without any evidence.”
MAC says:
May 10, 2014 at 7:50 am
“Ok. Name two glaciers…”
I would say the glacier on Mt St Helens.
Also, I would like to see this same type of comprehensive study for:
1. The Juneau Ice field. (Taku the largest is advancing)
2. The extensive glaciers around the Mt Logan/Mt St Elias ice fields (of which Hubbard is the largest and is basically advancing/stable)
3. The Patagonian glacier areas of southern Chile and Argentina
4. All of the glaciers around the perimeter of Greenland (just from a layman’s perspective, they look rather healthy to me from the latest Google Earth images. I’m sure you could compare the images from 2000 /01/02 and 2010/11.
Once again climate fear mongers are proven wrong. Once again those skeptical of climate fear are proven correct.
So here is a short and incomplete summary of the state of affairs.
(Only good news on ice listed here, for bad news see the Guardian or BBC)
• Himalayan glacier spiral meltdown halted or never was the case
• Global sea ice ‘normal’
• Polar bear numbers OK
• Antarctic sea ice extent near all time highs since 1979
• NH winter snow extent trending up since 1967
• Great lakes ice back big time this year (some still around)
• Arctic multi year ice (bottomed out, volume picked up 2013)
• Children know what snow is
A few more links on the IPCC 3035 date. First a bit of detective work by UK Channel 4 (TV):
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/science_technology/himalayan+glacier+claim+undermines+ipcc/3511087.html
The article above refers to a 1999 webpage that may be the origin of 2035:
http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/glaciers-beating-retreat
The webpage, in its second reference to 2035 (the first reference is incorrect), quotes a document that actually says 2350 (at least according to the C4 link above).
So, there probably was a typo, but it all suggests that WWF et al run the IPCC, and all the talk about peer-reviewed science is smoke and mirrors.
This is what happens when you ‘listen to the science’ (and economics) without batting an eyelid. You are made to look a fool. Well done Pachauri and co.
You need to read this. It should explain the 2035 ‘mistake’ in the 2007 report.
It’s worse than we thought. Donna has even covered Greenpeace.
The UNESCO report with 2350 is here:
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/001065/106523e.pdf
From the last page of section 8:
“The degradation of the extrapolar glaciation of the Earth will be apparent in rising ocean
level already by the year 2050, and there will be a drastic rise of the ocean thereafter caused
by the deglaciation-derived runoff (see Table 11 ). This period will last from 200 to 300
years. The extrapolar glaciation of the Earth will be decaying at rapid, catastrophic rates—
its total area will shrink from 500,000 to 100,000 km² by the year 2350. Glaciers will survive
only in the mountains of inner Alaska, on some Arctic archipelagos, within Patagonian ice
sheets, in the Karakoram Mountains, in the Himalayas, in some regions of Tibet and on the
highest mountain peaks in the temperature latitudes.”
So there you have the 2350, and the statement that the Himalayan glaciers will actually survive.
Has anyone thought of suing the IPCC for causing emotional distress (though the reality was probably mirth)?