Melting by 2035? Hardly! New study shows most Himalayan Glaciers are stable and in a steady state

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.

himalayan_glaciers_stable

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

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate News, Glaciers. Bookmark the permalink.

48 Responses to Melting by 2035? Hardly! New study shows most Himalayan Glaciers are stable and in a steady state

  1. Bloke down the pub says:

    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.

  2. Joshua says:

    To be fair, it looks like more are retreating than advancing. But ~80% stable is a far cry from “sky is falling” rhetoric.

  3. richard says:

    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.”

  4. richard says:

    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

  5. RealOldOne2 says:

    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”.

  6. son of mulder says:

    I think you will find that they have not yet adjusted the data.

  7. Ralph Kramden says:

    This is worse than we thought, the authors might lose their government grants for a report like this. Can’t they adjust the data?

  8. Steve Keohane says:

    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.

  9. Jimbo says:

    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.

    Guardian – 20 January 2010
    Georg Kaser, an expert in tropical glaciology at the University of Innsbruck in Austria and a lead author for the IPCC, said he had warned that the 2035 prediction was clearly wrong in 2006, months before the report was published. “This [date] is not just a little bit wrong, but far out of any order of magnitude,” he said.

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jan/20/ipcc-himalayan-glaciers-mistake

    ===========

    BBC – 19 January 2010
    Meanwhile, in an interview with the news agency AFP, Georg Kaser from the University of Innsbruck in Austria – who led a different portion of the AR4 process – said he had warned that the 2035 figure was wrong in 2006, before AR4’s publication.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8468358.stm

  10. richard says:

    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.

  11. richard says:

    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.

  12. Jimbo says:

    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.

    Raina, V. K. – 2009
    Himalayan glaciers: a state-of-art review of glacial studies, glacial retreat and climate change.
    ……….. It is argued that this would, in the long run, not only have an adverse effect on the environment, climate and the water resources but also on other concerned and connected activities. This paper provides a summary of the literature, as well as some fresh analysis of the issue. An interesting point made in this paper is that while glaciers are the best barometers known to assess past climate, the same may not be true for glacier fluctuations being an accurate guide of future climatic changes.

    http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/20093333167.html;jsessionid=2679453A5E1093113CECB2C2B0F6282A

    Why might this be? Bear in mind the IPCC’s claim that human influence has increased on the climate system since the 1950s.

    Abstract – 1979
    Himalayan and Trans-Himalayan Glacier Fluctuations Since AD 1812
    Historical records of the fluctuations of glaciers in the Himalayas and Trans-Himalayas date back to the early 19th century. Local and regional syntheses of 112 of these fluctuation records are presented in this study. The local syntheses deal with fluctuations of glaciers in Kanchenjunga-Everest, Garwhal, Lahaul-Spiti, Kolahoi, Nanga Parbat, Karakoram (north and south sides), Rakaposhi-Haramosh, Batura Mustagh, and Khunjerab-Ghujerab. Regional syntheses deal with the composite record and the differentiation of records by glacier type (longitudinal versus transverse) and regional setting (Himalayan versus Trans-Himalayan). In a gross regional sense Himalayan and Trans-Himalayan glaciers have been in a general state of retreat since AD 1850. Filtering of the fluctuation records with respect to glacier type and regional setting reveals that the period AD 1870 to 1940 was characterized by alternations in the dominancy of retreat, advance, and standstill regimes.

    http://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/ers_facpub/185/

  13. Jimbo says:

    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

  14. MAC says:

    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)?

  15. [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.

  16. MikeUK says:

    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.

  17. MikeUK says:

    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?

  18. John F. Hultquist says:

    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.

  19. 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.

  20. hunter says:

    Once again climate fear mongers are proven wrong. Once again those skeptical of climate fear are proven correct.

  21. Jimbo says:

    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

  22. MikeUK says:

    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.

  23. Jimbo says:

    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.

    Independent – 20 October 2009
    [Gordon Brown - Speech by the then British Prime Minister]
    ……..There are now fewer than
    50 days to set the course of the next 50 years and more. So, as we convene here, we carry great responsibilities, and the world is watching. If we do not reach a deal at this time, let us be in no doubt: once the damage from unchecked emissions growth is done, no retrospective global agreement, in some future period, can undo that choice. By then it will be irretrievably too late.

    In just 25 years the glaciers in the Himalayas which provide water for three-quarters of a billion people could disappear entirely….

    ….. the Stern Report, which I commissioned, concluded that failure to avoid the worst effects of climate change could lead to global GDP being up to 20 per cent lower than it otherwise would be…..

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/gordon-brown-we-have-fewer-than-fifty-days-to-save-our-planet-from-catastrophe-1805648.html

  24. Jimbo says:

    MikeUK says:
    May 10, 2014 at 11:11 am
    ………………
    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.

    You need to read this. It should explain the 2035 ‘mistake’ in the 2007 report.

    Nofrakkingconsensus
    How the WWF Infiltrated the IPCC – Part 1
    September 23, 2011 at 10:43 pm

    ========================================
    Part 2
    ……It means that nearly two-thirds of the 2007 Climate Bible’s chapters – 28 out of 44 (which works out to 64%) – have at least one individual on their roster who is affiliated with the WWF.

    It means that WWF-affiliated scientists helped write every last chapter in Working Group 2 – all 20 of them.

    It means that 15 chapters in the 2007 Climate Bible were led by WWF-affiliated scientists – their coordinating lead authors are members of the WWF’s panel. In three cases, chapters were led by two WWF-affiliated coordinating lead authors. In one instance eight personnel in a single chapter have WWF links. In another there are six……

    It’s worse than we thought. Donna has even covered Greenpeace.

  25. MikeUK says:

    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)?

  26. Jimbo says:

    This is not the first study to show little change. Just 2 years ago the Guardian reported this.

    Guardian – 8 February 2012
    The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years, study shows

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/08/glaciers-mountains

  27. Gary Pearse says:

    I’ve wondered from time to time about world glaciers having had no news of them in a long time. My assumption was that news about them didn’t support the agenda and it appears I am correct. I think it time for an article by knowledgeable types on the world’s glaciers. Remember we were bombarded regularly about the disaster of global glacier retreat. All I have heard since are glaciers in Alaska, Kilimanjaro and now Himalayas are stable or expanding.

  28. Gary Pearse says:

    I checked the authoritative (IPCC, etc.) world glacier monitoring service – measuring for over 100 years (but stopped measuring in 2008). Their last publication on this was 2008 and there has been no further reports – the reports were annual up to then and in their present web site they clarion the call for CO2 abatement which they anticipate will be endorsed in Copenhagen meeting (2009). They have the same blurb on the plight of rapidly retreating glaciers but even it dates 2008. They are, like the rest of the Global Warming Synod, in a holding pattern, praying for resumption of the warming. In fossicking around for info, I did see that the glaciers in CONUS have turned around and are all growing. Norwegian glaciers are growing ~7feet a year, All of NZ’s glaciers are growing over the last number of years. Remember the hype of impending iceless doom? This calls for a good global report here at WUWT on the status of glaciers now that the main guys at WGMS have fallen quiet since 2008. They invite inquiries – maybe worth a few emails.

    http://www.wgms.ch/

  29. James the Elder says:

    MikeUK says:

    May 10, 2014 at 8:42 am

    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.
    =============================
    World Wrestling Federation? Probably just as accurate.

  30. Siberian_Husky says:

    So what you are saying is that about twelve times as many glaciers are retreating as are advancing in the Himalayas? And about 20 square kilometres of ice has been lost in 10 years. That’s one hell of a lot of ice.

  31. Siberian_Husky says:
    May 10, 2014 at 5:38 pm
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    And we have 883,000 square kilometres of extra sea ice. Does that balance things? 😏

  32. bubbagyro says:

    Polar doggy:
    The global sea ice has increased almost a million sq. km in the past year alone. Let’s see, which is more? I’m not a mathematarian, so I can’t say exactly, dude.

  33. Siberian_Husky says:
    May 10, 2014 at 5:38 pm

    “So what you are saying is that about twelve times as many glaciers are retreating as are advancing in the Himalayas? And about 20 square kilometres of ice has been lost in 10 years. That’s one hell of a lot of ice.”

    -0.2% of the area of the glaciers monitored in this study. Is that all the glaciers in the Himalayas? Probably not. I think a study worldwide of all the glaciers should be done. Should be doable from all the satellite photos from way back when and now you can get them daily. I believe that both the Ice volume of both Greenland and Antarctica have increased in the last 10 years – that’s just my hunch from some of the photos I have seen. (also from data regarding ice thickness + vs -)
    It looks like the world glacier monitoring service hasn’t been monitoring glaciers since 2008 a lapse of 6 years. They are probably adjusting their data calculations so they can all talk from the same source.
    Just sayin…

  34. The largest tidewater glacier in North America:
    From Wakapedia:

    “Hubbard Glacier is a glacier located in eastern Alaska and part of yukon Canada.
    Map of Hubbard Glacier
    Hubbard Glacier, Alaska squeezes towards Gilbert Point on May 20, 2002 The glacier is close to sealing off Russell Fjord at top from Disenchantment Bay at bottom.

    The longest source for Hubbard Glacier originates 122 kilometres (76 mi) from its snout and is located at about 61°00′N 140°09′W, approximately 8 kilometres (5 mi) west of Mount Walsh with an altitude around 11,000 feet (3,400 m). A shorter tributary glacier begins at the easternmost summit on the Mount Logan ridge at about 18,300 feet (5,600 m) at about 60°35′0″N 140°22′40″W.

    Before it reaches the sea, Hubbard is joined by the Valerie Glacier to the west, which, through forward surges of its own ice, has contributed to the advance of the ice flow that experts believe will eventually dam the Russell Fjord from Disenchantment Bay waters.

    The Hubbard Glacier ice margin has continued to advance for about a century. In May 1986, the Hubbard Glacier surged forward, blocking the outlet of Russell Fjord and creating “Russell Lake.” All that summer the new lake filled with runoff; its water level rose 25 metres (82 ft), and the decrease in salinity threatened its sea life.[1]

    Around midnight on October 8 the dam began to give way. In the next 24 hours an estimated 5.3 cubic kilometres (1.3 cu mi) of water gushed through the gap, and the fjord was reconnected to the ocean at its previous level.[1] This was the second largest glacial lake outburst flood (GLOF) in recorded history, and had the equivalent flow of about 35 Niagara Falls.

    In spring 2002, the glacier again approached Bert Point. It pushed a terminal moraine ahead of its face and closed the opening again in July. On August 14, the terminal moraine was washed away after rains had raised the water level behind the dam it formed to 18 m (59 ft) above sea level.[2] The fjord could become dammed again, and perhaps permanently. If this happens, the fjord could overflow its southern banks and drain through the Situk River instead, threatening trout habitat and a local airport.

    It takes about 400 years for ice to traverse the length of the glacier, meaning that the ice at the foot of the glacier is about 400 years old. The glacier routinely calves[3] off icebergs the size of a ten-story building. Where the glacier meets the shore, most of the ice is below the waterline, and newly calved icebergs can shoot up quite dramatically, so that ships must keep their distance from it as they ply their way up and down the coast.
    …Status Advancing”…
    ____________________________

    Also from Wakapedia:
    “Taku Glacier is a tidewater glacier located in Taku Inlet in the U.S. state of Alaska, just southeast of the city of Juneau. Recognized as the deepest and thickest glacier known in the world, the Taku Glacier is measured at 4,845 feet (1,477 m) thick.[1] It is about 58 kilometres (36 mi) long, and is largely within the Tongass National Forest.

    The glacier was originally named Schultze Glacier in 1883 and the Foster Glacier in 1890, but Taku, the name the local Tlingit natives had for the glacier, eventually stuck. It is nestled in the Coast Mountains and originates in the Juneau Icefield. It is the largest glacier in the icefield and one of the southernmost tidewater glaciers of the northern hemisphere.

    The glacier, which converges with the Taku River at Taku Inlet, has a history of advancing until it blocks the river, creating a lake, followed by a dramatic break of the ice dam. The most recent of these advances occurred in 1750. The glacier has advanced 7.75 kilometres (4.82 mi) since 1890, and as of June 29, 2012 is 1.26 kilometres (0.78 mi) from Taku Point.[2] It is the only advancing glacier of the 20 major glaciers of the Juneau Icefield.[3] If the advance continues it will again block the river, but this appears unlikely at present. Since 1946, the glacier has been monitored by the Juneau Icefield Research Program, which has documented its rate of advance since 1988 at 17 metres (56 ft) a year. The advance is due to a positive mass balance; that is, more snow accumulates than snow and ice melt. Until 1948 the glacier had a calving front; since then the terminus has been grounded.

    Due to the positive mass balance and the fact that it was no longer losing mass to icebergs, Taku Glacier has become insensitive to the warming that has impacted all other glaciers of the icefield. This has driven its advance. The recent negative mass balance 1989-2005 is not large enough yet to stop the advance, but it is the first sign that the glacier’s advance may not take it to Taku Point.
    …Status Advancing”…

    Haven’t heard much at all about these glaciers from the World Glacier Monitoring Service… please correct me if I’m wrong…

  35. Tried emailing to the World Glacier Monitoring Service (6 different addresses – are they still in business:
    The email address “”wgmsgeo.uzh.ch”” is not recognized. Please fix it and try again.

  36. ralfellis says:

    When i was up in the Himalaya in the late ’90s, my guide pointed out all the tributary glaciers that were receding, and all those that were advancing. So there were wide differences between glaciers, and all within a 50-mile radius.

    Clearly, these differences were not due to climate, and they were hardly due to even weather, in such a small region.

    Ralph

  37. Jimbo says:

    What is the CURRENT global situation wrt mountain glacier retreat / advance / stability right now?

    What is the CURRENT total global mountain glacier mass balance situation?

    I know some glaciers advance at the same time some will retreat, and I know that glaciers have been in a GENERAL state of retreat since about 1850.

    Here are some OLD references I found on mountain glaciers.

    For glaciers outside Antarctica or Greenland—referred to here as subpolar and mountain glaciers—researchers have compiled and analyzed numerous measurements of existing mass balance (Dyurgerov and Meier 1997, Cogley and Adams 1998, Dyurgerov 2002, Cogley 2002, Dyurgerov and Meier 2005, Kaser et al. 2006).

    Since 1946 researchers have measured mass balance on more than 300 glaciers, although we only have continuous records for about 40 glaciers since the early 1960s.

    http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/glacier_balance.html

    There are thousand of glaciers so could it be they are monitoring the interesting ones only?

  38. Jimbo says:

    With regards to my last comment link see this from State of the Cryosphere on the National Snow and Ice Data Center. At the top they ask:

    “is the cryosphere sending signals about climate change?”

    If it’s sending signals then let us know. What is the use of funding if they can’t update this page up to 2012? They have a graph showing “Global Glacier Thickness Change:…..1961 to 2005…..”

    SOTC: Mountain Glaciers
    Last updated: 4 June 2008

    http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/glacier_balance.html

  39. george e. smith says:

    “””””…..Siberian_Husky says:

    May 10, 2014 at 5:38 pm

    So what you are saying is that about twelve times as many glaciers are retreating as are advancing in the Himalayas? And about 20 square kilometres of ice has been lost in 10 years. That’s one hell of a lot of ice……”””””

    Yes it is; almost 5,000 acres of lost ice. (4942).

    Gee that’s about how much California forest gets burned, every time some environmentalist roasts a few marshmallows, and then gets drunk, while contemplating the magnificence of solitude. And we lose far more than that in burning tumbleweed, every year, just along highway 5, because people pull off the road onto the grass with a hot catalytic converter, under their car.

  40. Jimbo says:

    Here is some information only on other stable or growing glaciers (not necessarily peer reviewed). PLEASE nobody reply to me telling me that mountain glaciers have been generally retreating since 1850, I know.

    You do realise that if mountain glaciers around the world GENERALLY started advancing they are gonna blame global warming. I am not kidding you.

    Some glaciers are apparently growing due to global warming. ;-)

    National Geographic – September 11, 2006
    Some glaciers in Pakistan’s Upper Indus River Basin appear to be growing, and a new study suggests that global warming is the cause.

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060911-growing-glaciers.html

    Some lost weight due to global warming and some gained weight due to global warming. ;-)

    Swiss Alps
    translation Philipp Mueller
    Schweiz am Sonntag, 29 September 2013
    For the Swiss Alps 2013 was a good summer. Not since ten years ago have the glaciers lost as little mass as this year. And some seem to be gaining a little weight.

    http://www.thegwpf.org/alpine-glaciers-growing/

    Growing Glaciers around the world

  41. Jimbo says:

    When looking at glacier ‘melt’ don’t only look for co2 warming they point to. There is deforestation and soot to name just two. You will find papers on soot in the Himalayas (Asian brown cloud), Greenland, the Arctic Ocean, Alps etc. Deforestation is known to be the major cause of the retreating ice cap of mount Kilimanjaro. Warm water can also play a part with sea terminating glaciers. It’s not just co2 induced hot air. Sometimes it’s induced by soot.

    Abstract
    End of the Little Ice Age in the Alps forced by industrial black carbon

    http://www.pnas.org/content/110/38/15216

    ——————-
    Nature Article – 2 September 2013
    How soot killed the Little Ice Age
    Industrial revolution kicked off Alpine glacier retreat fifty years before warming began.

    http://www.nature.com/news/how-soot-killed-the-little-ice-age-1.13650

  42. Jonny Old Boy says:

    Glacier data on the observed glaciers on earth is irrelevant. We simply do not have more than 1% of the data needed to make any meaningful predictions. Glacier data largely is skewed due to measured glaciers being near to populations and hence subject to human influence. I suspect if we DID have the data necessary it would point to one fairly obvious fact…. we are in an “inter-glacial” period and glaciers are understandably under pressure.

  43. Himalayian glaciers melting!

    ‘…just a quiet change of wording…so with no admission that he got anything wrong
    …Monckton has climbed down from a speech that he told the Himalayas have shown no particular change in 200 hundred years…to a claim that they have being retreating for 200 years…’

  44. Jimbo says:

    blackadderthe4th says:
    May 11, 2014 at 2:51 pm

    Himalayian glaciers melting!

    ‘…just a quiet change of wording…so with no admission that he got anything wrong
    …Monckton has climbed down from a speech that he told the Himalayas have shown no particular change in 200 hundred years…to a claim that they have being retreating for 200 years…’

    I would love to watch your video but my bandwidth is payed for by the MB and is running low.

    It seems Monckton made a response about the 200 year issue.

    WUWT January 11, 2012
    Monckton responds to Peter Hadfield aka “potholer54″ – plus Hadfield’s response
    ……..So why did he misrepresent me?

    “Monckton said there had been no change in the Himalayan glaciers for 200 years. There has.”

    No, I cited Professor M.I. Bhat of the Indian Geological Survey, who had told me on several occasions that the pattern of advance and retreat of these glaciers was much as it had been in the 200 years since the British Raj had been keeping records. That is very far from the same thing as saying there had been “no change”: indeed, it is the opposite, for advance and retreat are both changes. Why did the caveman misrepresent me?…….

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/11/monckton-responds-to-potholer54/

  45. Jimbo says:

    blackadderthe4th says:
    May 11, 2014 at 2:51 pm

    Himalayian glaciers melting!………..

    Here is a reference I gave earlier on past movements of the Himalayan glaciers.

    Abstract1979
    Himalayan and Trans-Himalayan Glacier Fluctuations Since AD 1812
    Historical records of the fluctuations of glaciers in the Himalayas and Trans-Himalayas date back to the early 19th century. Local and regional syntheses of 112 of these fluctuation records are presented in this study. The local syntheses deal with fluctuations of glaciers in Kanchenjunga-Everest, Garwhal, Lahaul-Spiti, Kolahoi, Nanga Parbat, Karakoram (north and south sides), Rakaposhi-Haramosh, Batura Mustagh, and Khunjerab-Ghujerab. Regional syntheses deal with the composite record and the differentiation of records by glacier type (longitudinal versus transverse) and regional setting (Himalayan versus Trans-Himalayan). In a gross regional sense Himalayan and Trans-Himalayan glaciers have been in a general state of retreat since AD 1850. Filtering of the fluctuation records with respect to glacier type and regional setting reveals that the period AD 1870 to 1940 was characterized by alternations in the dominancy of retreat, advance, and standstill regimes.
    http://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/ers_facpub/185/

    7 February 2010
    Lord Monckton article in the Sunday Indian.
    …..A few weeks ago, I e-mailed Professor MI Bhat, of the Indian Geological Survey. Professor Bhat is an entertaining, courteous and always profoundly knowledgeable scientist. I asked him how his glaciers were getting on……

    His report in response to my question was to the point. The glaciers were doing just fine, he said. Nothing unusual, compared with what could be found in the records going back at least 150 years……..

    http://www.thesundayindian.com/en/story/inconvenient-truths/37/571/

  46. Dr. Strangelove says:

    At the current rate the Himalayan glaciers are melting, it will take 4,880 years to disappear. I bet the next glacial period will arrive before that time, and New York and London will be under 1 km thick glacier.

  47. James at 48 says:

    Serious warming ought to crank up the thermal low in Central Asia every summer, putting the Monsoon into overdrive and moving most of those glaciers into the “Advancing” category.

  48. Siberian_Husky says:

    Wayne Delbeke says:

    And we have 883,000 square kilometres of extra sea ice. Does that balance things? 😏

    bubbagyro says:

    Polar doggy:
    The global sea ice has increased almost a million sq. km in the past year alone. Let’s see, which is more? I’m not a mathematarian, so I can’t say exactly, dude.

    No it doesn’t balance things. Ice has been decreasing in the arctic over the last couple of decades. Ice has been increasing in some (though not all) areas of the antarctic. This is a well understood phenomenon and predicted by increasing temperatures.

    Just for something different on this website- a proper study from a reputable journal:

    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/full/ngeo1767.html

Comments are closed.