From the : 
India ‘arrogant’ to deny global warming link to melting glaciers
IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri accuses Indian environment ministry of ‘arrogance’ for its report claiming there is no evidence that climate change has shrunk Himalayan glaciers
A leading climate scientist today accused the Indian environment ministry of “arrogance” after the release of a government report claiming that there is no evidence climate change has caused “abnormal” shrinking of Himalayan glaciers.
Jairam Ramesh, India’s environment minister, released the controversial report in Delhi, saying it would “challenge the conventional wisdom” about melting ice in the mountains.
Two years ago, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN agency which evaluates the risk from global warming, warned the glaciers were receding faster than in any other part of the world and could “disappear altogether by 2035 if not sooner”.
Today Ramesh denied any such risk existed: “There is no conclusive scientific evidence to link global warming with what is happening in the Himalayan glaciers.” The minister added although some glaciers are receding they were doing so at a rate that was not “historically alarming”.
However, Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the IPCC, told the Guardian: “We have a very clear idea of what is happening. I don’t know why the minister is supporting this unsubstantiated research. It is an extremely arrogant statement.”
read the entire article at the Guardian here
Jeremy (07:51:48) :
The pot calling the kettle black!
“IPCC is the very height of arrogance.
Not since King Canute have we seen such preposterous pretentions”
King Canute was the opposite of pretentious. The stunt with the sea was to demonstrate to those who worshiped him that he was not all powerful.
Scuse the rant but misquoting Shakespeare sets my buzzer buzzing.
Meantime I have just read a 200+ page broker’s report about the prospects in ’emerging markets’. The real economy does not believe in global warming
Evidently Rajendra Pachauri thinks he can make friends and influence people by playing the odious clown. 2035 is now the final date for the farcical AGW apocalypse? I hope I live another 25 years just so I can see this politician eat his words. Maybe it will only take five years.
Pachauri is not a climate scientist.
If the glaciers melt away – which I seriously doubt- does that mean it will no longer rain, either?
Of course he’s a leading climate scientist.
Just like the Goreacle and Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize.
Incidentally, I’m a Prima Ballerina Assoluta (even if I am 62 and weigh 250 lbs)…….
Don’t confuse me with facts, I made up my mind!
This summer I stood at the mouth of a huge glacial valley in the Absoroka Mountains of northwestern Wyoming. Ten or twelve thousand years ago the spot where I was standing would have been covered by at least 300 meters of ice. The remnant of that ancient glacier was visible about 20 miles away, high up in the volcanic peaks at the head of the valley. Manifold evidence of recent glaciation was all around.
We are in an interglacial period that began 12,000 or so years ago. These warm periods usually last 12-14K years, followed by long ice ages on the order of 100K years. Glaciers melted, sea levels rose. We had no part in it. Each of the last three ice ages had lower lows than the preceding one.
If the cycles continue as they have in the past we are enjoying the waning years of our interglacial and the long term outlook, geologically thinking, is for the onset of the next big freeze.
The paltry single molecule of CO2 per 10,000 molecules of air that we may have added to the atmosphere over the past 150 years will not save us from that fate.
“”” Espen (09:44:12) :
George E Smith: “Those Himalayan Glaciers are at least 5 km above sea level at their terminus, which puts the atmospheric temperature at around -17.5 deg C.”
Not quite. I’ve been to the Gangotri Glacier, which is often quoted as melting, and the terminus was at about 4000 meters. That was in 1982. If it’s at 5000 now, it would really be alarming 😉 But of course it isn’t, it has retreated a lot, there’s still a lot to go. “””
I thought in matters climate we deal with averages; not extremes. If there is at least one Himalayan glacier whose terminus is below 5 km, then I apologise for misleading everybody.
On the other hand, in New zealand, the Fox, and Franz Josef glaciers both come down almost to sea level, and I believe they are both currently advancing; although generally retreating over the long haul as we emerge from the last ice age.
So I’ll take 6.5 deg C off my temperature estimate to allow for your Gangotri glacier which evidently is only -11 deg C and therefore would melt much faster.
No, no. You’ve got it all wrong. Pachauri in an attempt to inject some honesty into his statement add the last sentence as a description of what he had just said. That’s all
Rajendra Pachauri, by what detailed quantifiable and qualifiable process are the Himalayan glaciaers melting?
What a wonderful report! Has Pachauri read it, before speaking?
Ecotretas
Since when has Rajendra Pachauri been a leading “climate scientist”?
India should have used an un-validated model full of guesswork, than the IPCC might take them seriously!
I protest any claim that Pachauri is any kind of a climate scientist.
He is a political mouthpiece for a political agenda. Nothing he says has anything to do with science.
How arrogant Pachauri is no climate expert and, by his complete disregard for the research, he demonstrates a lack of the honest scepticism required of any scientist. What a scandal that such a man is head of the IPCC.
History shows that glaciers are never static, but always in a state of either advance or retreat and this has been so throughout recorded time. Just like our dynamic chaotic climate they can never be static and are entrained to be in a state of constant change.
Nothing new here then except the failing AGW theory and it’s desperate defenders who are already punch drunk and desperately trying to avoid the knock-out punch. Wish I could bring myself to feel sorry for the poor guy, but I don’t.
Sikkim Tourism October 6, 2009
In Landmass Sikkim covers only 0.5 percent of India’s total landmass, though the size of the state is small compared to other states in the country this small state has 84 glaciers. In the last six years studies show that ice caps in the state have grown about four times. Of the many glaciers in Sikkim, the most famous prominent and most famous of all is Zemu Glacier. It is the largest glacier in Eastern Himalayas.
Evidently Rajendra Pachauri forgot about Sikkim.
http://sikkimtourism.wordpress.com/2009/10/06/zemu-glacier/
Precipitation in lower than freezing temperatures = glacier growth and increased glacier ice mass. Increased ice mass causes the extrusion of glacier ice to increase. Sublimation of glacier ice at the surface causes the reduction of glacier ice mass. Higher wind velocities cause faster rates of sublimination.
If precipitation – sublimation is greater than zero, the glacier will get larger in mass. If precipitation – sublimation is less than zero, the glacier will shrink in mass.
If the only tool you have is a thermometer, all the changes in glacier mass will seem like temperature and melting situations to you. One trick ponies are fun to watch only for a short while, and then get tiring.
Pachauri claims Indian scientific position “arrogant”
“Mr Kettle, there’s a Mr Pot on line one for you”
I’ve watched Mr Pachauri making his case during a presentation in New Zealand.
He is one of the IPCC charlatans who sold out on his own integrity to sell all the lies about our climate he does not believe himself. He is a liar.
Lubosz Motl has done a very good article on the subject and you can download a PDF of the Indian Research here”
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/11/pachauri-glaciology-is-arrogant.html
Arrogant? Arrogant? That’s a non sequitur of an adjective to use on the conclusion of a scientific report. The only terms that count are; is it accurate or inaccurate?
It seems to me that Mr. Pachauri doesn’t really understand the science of his own organization’s hypothesis. Since, as the Kilamanjaro situation has established, glacier extent is more strongly determined by precipitation levels than by temperature, if glaciers were in accelerated decline globally, that would indicate that global precipitation levels were also declining and by extension so must global levels of water in the atmosphere be declining. But the central premise on which the AGW hypothesis is based is that as rising levels of anthropogenically generated CO2 raise global temperatures, additional water vapor will be present in the atmosphere to generate the catastrophic warming we’re supposed to be so frightened about. The ad hominems Mr. Patchauri aims at Mr. Ramesh seem quite ironic, since Ramesh’s observations seem to offer more confirmatory support for the AGW hypothesis than the vision of a glacier free world that Patchauri posits.
Of course, since of the estimated number of nearly a hundred thousand glaciers on the planet, little more than one percent have ever been monitored or studied and of that small group most observations have been either scant and/or sporadic, it is quite a stretch to be extrapolating any conclusions about global climate from the behavior of glaciers anyway.
MartinG Atkins 08:18:49
I’m still laughing at your comment as I type this. What a great Holloween Mask!
Scary! What an idiot -not a scientist.
That poor man does not get a lot of love here. Pretty impressive resume though. Sure beats the typical Sunday scientist’s.
Here is an article explaining why some Himalayan glaciers are growing, though most are retreating: http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/05/05/himalayas-glaciers.html
The Chinese are worried for sure: http://www.china.org.cn/english/2002/Jun/33719.htm
Just trying to bring some balance…
“Ken Hall (09:01:22) :
Of course Pachauri is a leading climate scientist. Climate science is all about economics and taxation, is it not? So who better to represent climate science than an economist?”
Well it works too in Australia. The Govn’t’s leading climate adviser is Ross Gaurnot, an economist.
http://www.garnautreview.org.au/domino/Web_Notes/Garnaut/garnautweb.nsf
chmd (17:03:57),
That last link was just parroting the UN: “We need more funding.” And the link was from 2002. Got anything current? Nevermind, they’re still money grubbing.
Your other link blamed global warming for the retreating glaciers: “Throughout much of the Tibetan Plateau, high-altitude glaciers are dwindling in the face of rising temperatures.” But the growing glaciers? Oh, they’re growing because of local conditions.
If you’re going to blame everything on global warming, you might as well use the original list: click
And you’re right about Pachauri. We’re on to him here. Put “Pachauri” in the search box. You’ll see what I mean.
I knew of Pachauri’s flight from New York to Delhi during a break in a seminar. It was for a cricket match. Now I hear the flight was private charter jet.
Tell me, at least, that it was a public flight, with recycled copies of the Guardian.
Please assure me (a) that no-one is that blatant, and (b) that no-one would ever again lend credence to anyone that blatant.
Pachauri continues to embarass my alma mater (NCSU).
*sigh* 🙁
It’s an interesting question. I’m not a scientist, but have long wondered about a graph featured prominently in the Denver Museum of Nature and Science which suggests something quite different. I hope you’ll have a look and tell me what you think.
http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
Scroll down to see award-winning paleo-artist Christopher Scortese’s view of Earth’s paleoclimate history. He depicts the fluctuations of Earth’s climate on both sides of a mean 17 C during the last 2 billion years. We’re presently at a (relatively chilly) 12-13 C.
If accurate, we’ve had four long excursions into the hothouse (all peaking at nearly 25 C – where we’ve remained each time, for 100’s of millions of years), and four relatively short excursions (prior to the present one) into the icehouse, with lows around 10 C (only a few degrees below our present temps). Those “down” times (ice ages) represent only a small percent of the overall “up” times.
It true, it’s a globe which has spent the preponderance of its geological history well above the mean – in the hothouse. From its present temps, and the protracted period of (again, relative) cold that Earth has endured in the Pleistocene, it would appear warmer temps in the next few million years are in store.
Here’s Scortese’s C.V.
http://www.scotese.com/ScoteseCV.htm
If the underlying assumption is valid, that a cyclical upswing is in progress, then the century-long warming since the “Little Ice Age” (and fraudulent claims of AGW) may have their geneses in a real and vastly larger warming trend.