Himalayan glaciers not melting because of climate change, report finds
Himalayan glaciers are actually advancing rather than retreating, claims the first major study since a controversial UN report said they would be melted within quarter of a century.
From the Telegraph By Dean Nelson, New Delhi and Richard Alleyne
Researchers have discovered that contrary to popular belief half of the ice flows in the Karakoram range of the mountains are actually growing rather than shrinking.
The discovery adds a new twist to the row over whether global warming is causing the world’s highest mountain range to lose its ice cover.
It further challenges claims made in a 2007 report by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that the glaciers would be gone by 2035.
Full story at the Telegraph here, (h/t to many readers) below is the science behind the story.
==========================================================
From University of California, Santa Barbara: Scientists Find that Debris on Certain Himalayan Glaciers May Prevent Melting
(Santa Barbara, Calif.) –– A new scientific study shows that debris coverage –– pebbles, rocks, and debris from surrounding mountains –– may be a missing link in the understanding of the decline of glaciers. Debris is distinct from soot and dust, according to the scientists.
Melting of glaciers in the Himalayan Mountains affects water supplies for hundreds of millions of people living in South and Central Asia. Experts have stated that global warming is a key element in the melting of glaciers worldwide.
Bodo Bookhagen, assistant professor in the Department of Geography at UC Santa Barbara, co-authored a paper on this topic in Nature Geoscience, published this week. The first author is Dirk Scherler, Bookhagen’s graduate student from Germany, who performed part of this research while studying at UCSB.
“With the aid of new remote-sensing methods and satellite images, we identified debris coverage to be an important contributor to glacial advance and retreat behaviors,” said Bookhagen. “This parameter has been almost completely neglected in previous Himalayan and other mountainous region studies, although its impact has been known for some time.”
The finding is one more element in a worldwide political controversy involving global warming. “Controversy about the current state and future evolution of Himalayan glaciers has been stirred up by erroneous reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),” according to the paper.
“There is no ‘stereotypical’ Himalayan glacier,” said Bookhagen. “This is in clear contrast to the IPCC reports that lumps all Himalayan glaciers together.”
Bookhagen noted that glaciers in the Karakoram region of Northwestern Himalaya are mostly stagnating. However, glaciers in the Western, Central, and Eastern Himalaya are retreating, with the highest retreat rates –– approximately 8 meters per year –– in the Western Himalayan Mountains. The authors found that half of the studied glaciers in the Karakoram region are stable or advancing, whereas about two-thirds are in retreat elsewhere throughout High Asia. This is in contrast to the prevailing notion that all glaciers in the tropics are retreating.
Bookhagen explained the difference between debris and coverage by soot and dust on glaciers: “The debris cover has the opposite effect of soot and dust on glaciers. Debris coverage thickness above 2 centimeters, or about a half an inch, ‘shields’ the glacier and prevents melting. This is the case for many Himalayan glaciers that are surrounded by towering mountains that almost continuously shed pebbles, debris, and rocks onto the glacier.”
Thus, glaciers in the steep Himalaya are not only affected by temperature and precipitation, but also by debris coverage, and have no uniform and less predictable response, explained the authors. The debris coverage may be one of the missing links to creating a more coherent picture of glacial behavior throughout all mountains. The scientists contrast this Himalayan glacial study with glaciers from the gently dipping, low-relief Tibetan Plateau that have no debris coverage. Those glaciers behave in a different way, and their frontal changes can be explained by temperature and precipitation changes.
Bookhagen described results of another of his recent studies on this topic. He said that one of the key findings was that the Western Himalaya, including the Indus catchment and regions in Northern Pakistan and Northwestern India, depend heavily on seasonal snow and glacial melt waters, while Central Himalayan regions –– Western India and Nepal –– mostly depend on monsoonal rainfall.
The smaller seasonal water storage space in the Central Himalaya, which has only steep glaciers and no large snow fields, makes this region much more vulnerable to shifts in monsoonal strength and to glacial melting, explained Bookhagen. River discharge in these regions is crucial to sustain agriculture, hydropower, and drinking water. If the Indian monsoon season is weaker because of global atmospheric changes such as El Niño, then Central Nepal must primarily rely on water coming from the seasonal melting of glaciers and the small amount of snowmelt that is available.
“Retreating glaciers, and thus a reduction of seasonal water storage in this region, have a large impact on hundreds of millions of people living in the downstream section of these rivers,” said Bookhagen. “The mitigation and adaptation strategies in the Himalaya Mountains thus need to take into account the spatial climatic and topographic variability. There is no regional solution, but only different local strategies to the future water shortage. The geographic setting of High Asia poses political difficulties as future water treaties need to be carefully evaluated.”
###
Perfect! We can allay the fears of our alarmist friends by throwing a bunch of light colored rocks on top of all the glaciers…….fixed. Now go fixate on something else.
As to the worry about running out of water, I promise, and I think I can speak for the rest of us here, I promise to recycle every ounce of water I use for future use by others. Now, if the alarmists could just be as warm hearted and nice as the skeptics, we wouldn’t have to worry about water.
Sue Smith says:
January 27, 2011 at 5:47 am
Of course, if you had bothered to follow the links, or even read the post properly, you would have found that this is “from the Telegraph By Dean Nelson, New Delhi and Richard Alleyne” and not what “Anthony Watts says”.
In an earlier article entitled Skeptical Science? John Cook – embarrassing himself, Watt’s defended wrongly attributing comments to Cook thusly: “REPLY: I’m aware of this, but as people routinely point out to me, I’m responsible for my own blog content. The fact that Cook allows this in any main post is the issue. – Anthony”
Ever since I’ve felt comfortable attributing every piece of nonsense that appears here to Anthony.
Further, irrespective of source, the article is still pure bunkum.
REPLY: Well then, ever since this comment, I’m comfortable automatically attributing every comment of yours to the bit bucket – Anthony
The article is in Nature Geoscience:
Thanks to one and all who took the trouble to answer my question. at 27 Jan at 0256 hrs.
Anthony – when you said above “REPLY: Well then, ever since this comment, I’m comfortable automatically attributing every comment of yours to the bit bucket – Anthony” it sort of invalidates one of the more common reasons for the praise your site receives such as “unlike WUWT, un-’skeptical science’ deletes any comments that it considers to be ‘inflammatory” ” from http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/27/skeptical-science-john-cook-embarrassing-himself/#comment-492731
I don’t think most posters here were aware of your policy of automatically binning (banning) commenters that you disagree with.
[Louise that simply isn’t true and you know it. Anthony only “bans” in extremis and only when it is obvious trolling or down right insulting to some or many. The tolerance for different points of view here is quite extensive but those who step over the bounds of good taste and good manners get binned. Sometimes for a while and if the poster is persistently “outside the rabbit proof fence” they are banned. In my time here that has happened less than five times and judging by the leeway given to all this site epitomizes tolerance . . . stop it]
[Snip. ~dbs, mod.]
Warmists seem to have a tendency to latch onto warming temperature as the only reason for Himalayan glacier retreat. They deliberately ignore soot, precipiation, debris etc.
——
“However, glaciers in the Western, Central, and Eastern Himalaya are retreating, with the highest retreat rates –– approximately 8 meters per year –– in the Western Himalayan Mountains. The authors found that half of the studied glaciers in the Karakoram region are stable or advancing, whereas about two-thirds are in retreat elsewhere throughout High Asia.”
If I remember correctly there’s more than 30 000 glaciers on the Chinese side alone, and out of the 100 000 plus known glaciers registered in the whole world only some 5000 have been visited and at least partly measured, so how many glaciers did they really study to draw a generalized conclusion that includes all tens of thousands of glaciers in the Himalaya?
Or did they just do what seems to be the most common denominator visit only a handful of glaciers and then call it the day?
Has anyone compiled a list of AGW “facts” that have turned out to be false?
“Melting of glaciers in the Himalayan Mountains affects water supplies for hundreds of millions of people living in South and Central Asia. Experts have stated that global warming is a key element in the melting of glaciers worldwide.”
Yay! More water for people in South and Central Asia if there is global warming!
“REPLY: Well then, ever since this comment, I’m comfortable automatically attributing every comment of yours to the bit bucket” – Anthony
========================================================
Anthony, I wouldn’t worry about it too much. People can see the game he’s playing. It simply reaffirms the smallish character of the typical warmista. I think it is a good thing to display their mentality in their own words. But, its your site.
Cheers.
So let me see if I understand this correctly.
1. Glaciation is complex with many factors unknown or poorly understood.
2. One can attempt to “model” glacial behaviour simplistically by including certain variables while excluding variables the modeller doesn’t understand or doesn’t accept.
3. Models of this nature will almost certainly lead to erroneous results.
4. Simplistic models of complex systems are highly prone to confirmation bias (at best) or fraud (at worst).
This is very disturbing and I hope it doesn’t occur in any other areas of science, particularly where large sums of money and dramatic policy recommendations are involved.
Louise says:
January 27, 2011 at 7:51 am
Blah-blah………
The fact that you can say it, disproves your conjecture. But keep it up, maybe you, too, can become an exception:-)
Oh great, you know that there will now be biblical flooding in these regions that “will know future water shortage.” These scientists should go to the Sahara and cry about how dry it is and by year’s end, voila, rain forest.
Isn’t somebody going to write to Mr Pachauri to ask him to give his grant money back, now that someone else has done the work?
No doubt Louise and Kevin MacDonald would be happier posting with the other adolescents at the Global Warming Superheroes blog.☺
Although the IPCC has officially admitted that this claim had the procedural problem of not being based directly on a primary reference, a close reading of its statement on the matter reveals no admission that the claim is actually wrong (as it is).
A team from Ohio State University studied this phenomenon in the 1960s on Alaskan glaciers in the wake of debris avalanches triggered by the Great Alaska Earthquake.
That first photo of the Passu Glacier, in the Karakoram could easily be a photo of either the Fox or Franz Joseph Glaciers in New Zealand. They have the same ‘canyon trapped’ siting, with high walls to shed rocks and stuff.
As for the albedo effect of glaciers; particularly non-polar (Antarctic) glaciers; their reflectance is not all that it is cracked up to be. There’s considerable snow and ice optical data in The InfraRed Handbook; the Military has a vested interest in knowing the optical properties of such terrains; well other terrains as well. To be more specific, they like their weapons to know about those terrains.
For example, I found this data relating to aging of snow surfaces. Tests run at three ages from fresh fallen 14 hours, 44 hours, and 70 hours. For the visible to about 1.1 microns the 14 hour snow has around 85 +/-5 % reflectance, with source and detector at +/-5 deg from normal (to surface) That drops to 55% for 1.2-1.4 microns, then tanks at about 5% at 1.5 microns, and then oscillates with peaks at 1.85 and 2.25 microns of about 20% and 15% respectively.
This pattern repeats but at a lower level for the 44 hour snow, averaging 60+/-5% to start, dropping to 405 from 1.1 o 1.2 microns. The 70 hour snow is a tad above 40+/-5% at the short end, and is under 20% at that first 1.1-1.2 plateau, and is under 1% at 1.5 microns. That whole spectral range from visible out to 2.5 microns is where about 98% of the total solar energy lies; m,aybe 97%. Equally illuminating; pun intended, the snow density at 14 hours was 0.097 g/cm^3 rising to 0.104 at 44 hours, and then leaping to 0.347 at 70 hours.
I have the original paper citing:-H.W. Obrien, et al; “Red and Near Infra-red Spectral Reflectance of snow” U.S.Army Cold Region Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover NH CREEL (AD-A007732), 1975
See I don’t have to make this stuff up; somebody else already made it up for me.
So what is happening of course is that initially the snow (ice crystal) surface is highly scattering, and that high angle scattering masquerades as reflectance, even though water has relatively low reflectance. But light does get down in the crevices and voids in the snow, and gets trapped, so there is some energy absorption and surface melting. Once the crystalline surface melts, then it becomes much more optically transparent, and the light can now freely enter; and then the mayhem commences, because you now get TIR (Total Internal Reflection) trapping, which increases the absorption and melting.
It turns out that subalpine open slopes, and deserts, as well as yucca and sagebrush have spectral reflectances in the red and near IR region that can be as high as60% for the rocks, and 40% for the plants, and in the case of the plants the reflectances hold up better out to 2.0 microns.
So I wouldn’t be surprised to find that some of those glacial debris pebbles and rocks, could have as high or higher reflectances as the aged snow and ice. I’ll try to find some specific rock data.
Snow tends to look so bright, because it is such a diffuse reflectance (scattering), so it looks at you from all directions, and it scatters a very broad (visible light) spectral range. Rocks are a bit more spectrally selective. That Sierra Nevada Granite looks a nice gray; about like the Eastman Kodak standard 18% gray target. I assume its granite; but I’m no geologer, so I tend to take too much for granite !
Louise that simply isn’t true and you know it. Anthony only “bans” in extremis and only when it is obvious trolling or down right insulting to some or many.
And using evidence to show that a piece of reportage is junk constitutes trolling and insulting around these parts does it? Colour me stunned.
REPLY: No, in your case it is purposely and willfully misquoting me, even when your error is pointed out, by your own words, you will continue. It’s one thing to disagree, it’s quite another to create a lie of attribution, and continue the lie of attribution when called on it, simply because you disagree. So yes, you are a troll.
And in the issue you cite above, complaining that I made a mistake of attribution, you conveniently neglect to point out that as soon as I was aware of it, I corrected it, and attributed it to John Bruno:
You on the other want to willfully continue, and that’s the problem and that why you are binned now. Whether you get out of the bin is up to you and how you behave in the future.
– Anthony
Jeepers, some of these comments are just getting downright nasty. The flavour generated is bordering on the uncivil and hostile atmosphere of typical warmist sites.
How about we just talk about the merits or otherwise of the report’s findings? The main one being that thick debris cover slows down glacial retreat and is another variable in understanding glacial behaviour. I wonder if the report quantifies this at all.
Our study shows that there is no uniform response of Himalayan glaciers to climate change and highlights the importance of debris cover for understanding glacier retreat, an effect that has so far been neglected in predictions of future water availability9, 10 or global sea level11.
Seems to say the predictions are wrong.
“”””” Jimbo says:
January 27, 2011 at 7:55 am
Warmists seem to have a tendency to latch onto warming temperature as the only reason for Himalayan glacier retreat. They deliberately ignore soot, precipiation, debris etc.
Lawrence Berkeley National Labs – 3 Feb. 2010
“Black Carbon a Significant Factor in Melting of Himalayan Glaciers”
“Our simulations showed greenhouse gases alone are not nearly enough to be responsible for the snow melt,” says Menon, a physicist and staff scientist in Berkeley Lab’s Environmental Energy Technologies Division. “Most of the change in snow and ice cover—about 90 percent—is from aerosols. Black carbon alone contributes at least 30 percent of this sum.” “””””
There’s that simulation word again. So has anybody ever knowingly met up with some black carbon while trudging around on snow; or even glaciers. Yes I’ve seen plenty of “dirt” on the glaciers I’ve been on; not much that I could declare was carbon; well black carbon that is; haven’t seen any white (clear) carbon on glaciers either.
But I can see how “black” materials can absorb heat; more so with smaller particle sizes (more projected area per mass). Those heated particles then burrow their way into the snow/ice, and are pretty soon hidden; so it is is not as if they are a long term heat absorber; but yes they obviously melt some snow initially.
So once you filter out the Telegraph re-write….
Glaciers in the Western, Central, and Eastern Himalaya are retreating, about 2/3 are retreating over most of the Himalayan area except for glaciers in steep valleys in the Karakoram region of Northwestern Himalaya.
There ‘only’ half are retreating, the other half are stagnating or advancing.
So half are retreating in this region and less than half are advancing.
In the rest of the Himalaya two thirds are retreating.
The finding that a small minority of Himalaya glaciers may be advancing, and surface debris could be a factor in thsi is stated to be significant because –
“This is in contrast to the prevailing notion that all glaciers in the tropics are retreating.”
I wonder WHOSE ‘prevailing notion’ this is. Not the researcher who study the mass balance of glacier and ice fields. I doubt any would claim that ALL glaciers or ice fields are losing mass, just that the overall average in any region is negative.
Perhaps the ‘prevailing notion that all glaciers in the tropics are retreating’ is a strawman chosen to enhance the apparent significance of the research. Especially the novel aspect of it, the possible role of debris in protecting from surface melt the small minority of steep valley glaciers advancing.
“”””” (Santa Barbara, Calif.) –– A new scientific study shows that debris coverage –– pebbles, rocks, and debris from surrounding mountains –– may be a missing link in the understanding of the decline of glaciers. Debris is distinct from soot and dust, according to the scientists. “””””
Seems like a pretty innocuous statement to me. Says “maybe” “understanding” “decline of glaciers”, etc and as I read it they don’t seem to suggest that “most” glaciers are advancing; their wording definitely leaves me with receding glaciers up front and center; but NOT all of them; and they make a plausible case why some of them aren’t.
I’ve got good solid actual physically measured data in front of me that says that snow ain’t that good of a reflector compared to other terrains; well at least not as good as its popular reputation. I’m not going to argue that glacial regions aren’t generally in retreat. I think that always happens when earth emerges from an ice age; and likely continues till it enters into another one.
This is good work, it seems to me. When glaciergate first came up, it was pointed out that although glaciers in the Himalayan east and south were retreating (but would certainly be around for more than 35 years!), glaciers in the Karakoram area were stable or even growing.
Now we begin to see why: in the Karakorams, the glaciers run in steep valleys, and they grind down the sides of the mountains, the detritus of which falls onto the glaciers as debris fields that serves as insulation and retards melting.
So that is apparently why glaciers elsewhere in the Himalayas are retreating (not ALL glaciers elsewhere, though) — a little more warmth, a little more melting. The world is getting warmer, the satellite data tell us that, so it makes sense that glaciers not insulated by debris would shrink.
The issue isn’t whether we are warming, it is how fast we are warming and what will the consequences be of warming at the current rates for a few decades longer. The Tibetan Ice cap is shrinking. Is the rate of shrinkage of the ice cap, and of glaciers in the eastern and southern Himalayas, going to cause terrible harm if we don’t do something soon, as alarmists say? Or can this wait a bit longer until we have cheaper solutions, as Bjorn Lomborg proposes?
FYI, there are glaciers (the Muldrow?) on the north side of Mt. McKinley in Alaska which have so much dirt on them, trees actually grow on the dirt that covers the glacier near the terminus. Don’t know the mechanism by which so much actual soil gets onto the glacier.