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
ferd berple
February 9, 2012 7:46 am

Is it simply a co-incidence that the place where there is major ice loss is the geographic north pole? Given the rapid changes in earth’s magnetic field of late, doesn’t this give weight to the theory that magnetic fields play a large role in climate?

Birdieshooter
February 9, 2012 7:49 am

GregS says..”.The significant amount of Arctic and Antarctic ice loss is because of sublimation, not melting, and is more indicative of regional drying than regional melting.”
A few days ago a study in AMS found a reduction of relative humidity of .5 or so in North America. It was featured here . Can someone tie the two concepts together or is there no connection not just the location but can the AMS finding be extrapolated to other regions of the world ?

Alexej Buergin
February 9, 2012 7:50 am

“CodeTech says:
February 9, 2012 at 7:13 am
Personally I’m aghast that a mainstream publication such as The Guardian would publish something that says “less then”.”
That is a long tradition of the intellectual left and is the reason the paper is officially called the Grauniad.

February 9, 2012 7:50 am

Sorry, my comment above shows I didn’t read the caption carefully enough. Scatch that.

ferd berple
February 9, 2012 7:50 am

David Middleton says:
February 9, 2012 at 5:46 am
If there was no significant steric sea level rise from 2003-2010, how could Trenberth’s missing heat be hiding in the ocean?
Because the models predict it must be there and like all oracles, they are infallible. The error is in the humans that interpret the results.

Silver Ralph
February 9, 2012 7:54 am

Talking of snow on hills, Japan has had a record snowfall this year – up to 4m worth !!
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/1710/499/Prefecture_of_Japan_pleads_for_help_after_being_hit_with_record_snow-fall.html
(Sorry, Tips and Notes is too long again, and will not load on an iPad.)
.

Theo Goodwin
February 9, 2012 7:56 am

Barry Woods says:
February 9, 2012 at 3:06 am
“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.”
This is truly mind boggling. Not even the proverbial man in the street could possibly understand how anyone, much less peer reviewed scientists and journals, could imagine that glacier runoff provided water for large numbers of people. You would have to be entirely ignorant of glacier fed rivers to make such a claim. You would have to be someone who had never visited the source of glacier fed rivers. If you had actually seen the river, you would surely realize that the part of it that is glacier fed is tiny in comparison to lower parts of the river. The only possible conclusion is that the claim was created entirely for the purpose of scare mongering and had nothing to do with science. Everyone associated with such claims, journal editors included, should be reprimanded for allowing such claims to see the light of day.

Kelvin Vaughan
February 9, 2012 7:57 am

AGW_Skeptic says:
February 9, 2012 at 3:50 am
Scary how close they came to pulling it off! Long live ClimateGate.
Apart from the fact CO2 carries on its steady upward march despite all their efforts.

michael hart
February 9, 2012 7:58 am

John Brookes says:
February 9, 2012 at 6:16 am
“I presume corrections have been made for the Himalaya’s still pushing up.”
A fair question, John. There is nothing wrong with being sceptical.
I also presume that if this turns out to be correct somebody will correct the Wikipedia entry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himalayas#cite_note-8
which states:
“In recent years, scientists have monitored a notable increase in the rate of glacier retreat across the region as a result of global climate change.”

Richard
February 9, 2012 8:10 am

I rather suspect that it is cold salt that is hiding in the oceans deeps, not Trenberth’s heat!

steveta_uk
February 9, 2012 8:18 am

But but but, what if Patchy was right?
On January 8 2035, Near-Earth object 2002 AY1 will make a close approach to Earth. What if it hits the Himalayas instead? And MELTS THEM!!!!!
Then who’ll be looking silly?

February 9, 2012 8:20 am

Kelvin Vaughan says:
“Apart from the fact CO2 carries on its steady upward march despite all their efforts.”
But temperatures are not following, as endlessly predicted. Which makes CO2 unimportant. Worrying about an ineffective trace gas comprising only 0.00039 of the air is a waste of energy, and spending any more public money on it is misappropriation of public funds. If CO2 goes way, way up to 0.00049 of the air, it is still a tiny trace gas.

James Sexton
February 9, 2012 8:21 am

What I thought was illuminating was the way they estimated ice loss/sea level rise prior to the satellites. …..

The reason for the radical reappraisal of ice melting in Asia is the different ways in which the current and previous studies were conducted. Until now, estimates of meltwater loss for all the world’s 200,000 glaciers were based on extrapolations of data from a few hundred monitored on the ground. Those glaciers at lower altitudes are much easier for scientists to get to and so were more frequently included, but they were also more prone to melting.
The bias was particularly strong in Asia, said Wahr: “There extrapolation is really tough as only a handful of lower-altitude glaciers are monitored and there are thousands there very high up.”

This is facepalm stuff of epic proportions. The moronic dire predictions of us drowning were because glaciers were extrapolated from low altitude melting glaciers. Because it was “really tough” to extrapolate from the higher altitude non-melting glaciers. I wrote about this yesterday…… Yes. Yes, They Really Are That Dumb!

Ian W
February 9, 2012 8:26 am

Michael Reed says:
February 9, 2012 at 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?

You should not be so worried as the quoted scientists who are terrified at their potential loss of funding; therefore they have to keep up the incantations of their mantra.

Robin Hewitt
February 9, 2012 8:29 am

So the science was good after all, the mistake was a mere typo, 2035 instead of 2350. Not quite how I remember it but I suppose it’s now passed peer review and become Gospel truth.

Latitude
February 9, 2012 8:34 am

James Sexton says:
February 9, 2012 at 8:21 am
What I thought was illuminating was the way they estimated ice loss/sea level rise prior to the satellites. …..
==============================================
That too….and the fact that satellite measurements of sea level are a total crock….
People argue over the adjustments made to satellite measurements….
the data the comes out of the satellites
..and don’t go back far enough on the data to realize even the satellites were adjusted to show sea level rise

A physicist
February 9, 2012 8:36 am

It is surprising to see a WUWT post step directly into a power-packedl warmist “gotcha”. Specifically, it is easy for folks to assume (from Anthony’s post) that Antarctica and Greenland are showing *no* ice-mass loss. `Cuz look, those polar-regions are plotted all-white, right?
Wrong. The GRACE satellite data vividly show rapidly accelerating ice-mass in both Antarctica and Greenland …the NASA graphic that Anthony posted simply omits to color them (to be sure, NASA’s caption does state this … but that caption is mighty easy to overlook).
So to the extent that WUWT skeptics accept the ice-mass loss that Anthony is showing, isn’t it ture that WUWT skeptics are setting themselves up to be “hoisted by their own petard” in accepting satellite validation of James Hansen’s predictions?
`Cuz those are NASA’s GRACE satellite numbers. And James Hansen and his colleagues are betting “all-in” that these NASA numbers are right.

Steve Keohane
February 9, 2012 8:37 am

tommoriarty says: February 9, 2012 at 7:32 am
Good perception. A few years ago I took the UN figures, questionable I know, for irrigation and calculated if all of that water went into the oceans, it would increase sea level 2.2 mm/year. Between irrigation, ‘warming’ ocean’s and ‘melting’ glaciers, where is the signal for catastrophe, ie. the sudden increase in rising sea level rate?

jack morrow
February 9, 2012 8:40 am

Kelvin Vaughan says at 7:57am
Real scary, and they aren’t finished with their schemes to get money from any one or any country. Until we rid ourselves of these kind of people ,we will continually be faced with some sort of assault on our freedoms. The UN-a good idea- hijacked.

tegiri nenashi
February 9, 2012 8:41 am

This blue spot over Patagonia is puzzling. There was a Globe Trekker episode where the host (Justin Shapiro) told that “this is one of the *few* glaciers in the world which is actually growing”. The show is dated 5-10 years ago — just at the time Grace measurement started. Which is perfectly reasonable: it grows sometimes, then it shrinks.

Fred from Canuckistan
February 9, 2012 8:42 am

The Gore legacy preserved for all times via Youtube

pat
February 9, 2012 8:53 am

This is the same University of Colorado laboratory that claimed the sea level was rising but we could not measure it because the continents and large islands were rising also because of mass loss of ice. Hmmmm. I bet it is a bit frosty around the water cooler.

Peter Miller
February 9, 2012 8:58 am

So if it wasn’t for the soot factor, glaciers would probably be growing right now.
As Al Gore says, “this is an inconvenient fact”.

Richard111
February 9, 2012 8:58 am
Louis
February 9, 2012 9:01 am

“The GRACE results in this region really were a surprise,” said Wahr, who is also a fellow at the University of Colorado-headquartered Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences. “One possible explanation is that previous estimates were based on measurements taken primarily from some of the lower, more accessible glaciers in Asia and extrapolated to infer the behavior of higher glaciers. But unlike the lower glaciers, most of the high glaciers are located in very cold environments and require greater amounts of atmospheric warming before local temperatures rise enough to cause significant melting. This makes it difficult to use low-elevation, ground-based measurements to estimate results from the entire system.”

High glaciers are located in colder environments than lower glaciers? Really? How long has it taken these “climate scientists” to discover that inconvenient fact? Are they really that stupid, or is it that they thought WE were that stupid? Mark this down as another example of “scientists” willing to lie (or at least exaggerate) for the “cause”.