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 (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
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.”
rossbrisbane says:
February 10, 2012 at 1:58 am
errrrr they ended up in the hydrological cycle. water doesn’t leave the cycle Ross
When I look at the regeion with mass gain in the eastern part of the Tibet “ice” amss gain is in a region with many lakes not bould to any drainage system: melting ice would stay in theses lakes within this region.
I wounder if grace could detect this. AFAIK the system cannot determine this.
Kadaka, with sincere respect for your lengthy and well-reasoned post, none-the-less that same post amounts to a lengthy quibble that seeks to evade the two main points.
as greater than ~80%.
as less than ~20%.
GHE 
AGW, to substantially exceed the rational bounds 
.
Point 1: No rational scientist estimates the probability
Point 2: No rational skeptic estimates the probability
The point being, that neither rational scientists nor rational skeptics have sufficiently good data and strong theories, regarding the Hansen-style physics of GHG
And the common-sense reason being, that excessive confidence has no rational role in strong science *or* strong skepticism, so that both extremes of belief are best avoided.
Now, isn’t that the plain, common-sense, non-quibbling, rational way to think?
rossbrisbane says:
February 10, 2012 at 1:58 am
“Look carefully folks GREENLAND is losing mass. Look carefully Antarctica is losing MASS.”
Dave Wendt says:
“I would suggest you consider the fact that the mass of an ice sheet can decline for reasons other than it melting away. Consider the interactive map provided by this site”
You are going have to prove it are you not?
I would suggest that ice in those parts just does not disappear in an implied cooling world.
The ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica continually lose ice no matter what the temperatures are in those places. The mass balance changes based on the difference between the rate of loss and the rate of accumulation. A recent paper analyzing the ice cores from Dome A in East Antarctica, purported to be one of the slowest accumulating sites on that continent, suggests that the annual accumulation there is about an inch of water equivalent per year
http://www.igsoc.org/journal/current/207/j11J138.pdf
In the interior of E. Antarctica temperatures, even in the peak of Summer, average far below the freezing point. There are a variety of speculations out there about how long it has been since Antarctica has experienced a continental scale melting event. The shortest one I’ve seen suggests about 1 million years, although 3 million seems more popular. An inch/yr for 1 million years amounts to almost 16 Miles of ice that has been added at Dome A. without an opportunity to melt. The core there, drilled to bedrock, indicates there is now about 2 miles of ice remaining, indicating that 13-14 miles of ice has come and gone in the last million years and in all likelihood none of it did so by melting. For other areas of the continent accumulation rates are suggested up to 6 inches per annum. If you combine those rates with the more common 3 million year time span back to a melting event, we would have an ice sheet extending up into the stratosphere if the ice was not continually extruding back into the oceans.
From A physicist on February 10, 2012 at 6:41 am:
The “quibble” is you have falsely represented data as saying something it does not say. I called you out on it, and you’ve hand-waved the criticism as a “quibble” that’s evading the points you built on that falsely represented data.
You presented the house as built on concrete, I showed it was only compacted sand, you say that’s a quibble that doesn’t detract from the value of the house. I don’t pretend to understand how they practice science on your planet, but what you did doesn’t work on this one.
Hansen has a long public record of portraying CAGW as a certainty without draconian action to prevent it. He has demonstrated the strength of his convictions by allowing (arranging?) himself to be arrested while protesting multiple times.
Therefore Hansen is not a rational scientist, by your criteria he is irrational and/or a non-scientist. And yet you portray him as some sort of inspired prophet whose predictions will come true. Thus you have self-demolished a major pillar of your arguments.
Then this site is flush with irrational skeptics, including many scientists who are irrational skeptics by your criteria. By new scientific research and evidence, by the geological history of the planet itself, the probability of CAGW, of catastrophic global warming period, has been revealed as similar to winning the lottery. Indeed, the probability of sudden catastrophic global cooling is greater than that of warming.
Thus if this site is so chock-full of irrational skeptics according to your criteria, why are you even here?
Beyond that, with so much being revealed as to how the “catastrophic” part of AGW won’t happen, as numerous “tipping points” are shown as non-existent and the planet was arguably warmer during the Medieval Warm Period and definitely warmer during the Roman Warm Period without catastrophe happening, that the anthropogenic “greenhouse gas” emissions have no special properties that could induce catastrophe beyond warming, whatever global warming will occur has been shown to be modest and leisurely in its coming, far better addressed by adaptation rather than the proposed draconian mitigation strategies.
Your construct has a problem, in that scientists are supposed to be skeptical, and skeptics should approach the issue scientifically, thus the groups overlap.
Extreme confidence does have a place in science. Many important discoveries have been made on the assumption that something must be there, with resources allocated for experimentation based on such. Much engineering is done on the premise that something must work and will work with the proper process.
With regards to climate, science actually compels us to assign a very low probability to catastrophic global warming of any sort, given the geological history of the planet, especially the “recent” part of it with the established biosphere, current continental positions, etc. It is up to those proposing the possibility of catastrophic global warming to convincingly raise that probability higher, from the science-mandated starting value of practically nil. So far, as things have been turning out, they have failed to do so.
Thus your 20% to 80% probability range, beyond which you label as irrational with such confidence as excessive, is shown to be highly artificial and indeed in error when considering the overlapping groups of scientists and skeptics.
Kadaka, regarding your second point, pretty much everyone will agree with that. Because yes, excessive confidence is notably common among folks who fancy themselves “skeptics.”
But regarding your first point … “Hansen’s long public record of portraying CAGW as a certainty” … uhhhh … yah got a reference for that? (as Willis Eschenbach is fond of requesting).
Because a literature search indicates that James Hansen has never used the word “certain” (or any of its variants) in any of the titles or abstracts of his published articles.
WUWT?, indeed.
Hmmmm … so perhaps the fact of the matter is simply this: Dr. Hansen’s opinions are far more circumspect than his reputation here on WUWT would suggest?
From A physicist on February 10, 2012 at 5:32 pm:
Apparently the Hansen of your universe has never put out his book Storms of My Grandchildren. From the book’s website:
http://www.stormsofmygrandchildren.com/climate_catastrophe_solutions.html
Saying we MUST do that to avoid disaster shows certainty. “Decreasing the possibility” is not in there.
Oh look, it’s that word certainty, as part of Hansen’s public record.
“Business as usual” will cause catastrophe. Not “increase the probability”.
Your feeble attempt at hand-waving dismissal aside, it is easily and clearly shown that Hansen has a public record of portraying CAGW as a certainty without draconian action to prevent it, that last part I put in italics being the part of my original words you somehow clipped off without properly using an ellipse.
But is it a long public record?
Google Scholar appears to do a far superior job of searching the literature than you did, “hansen certainty climate” returns many valid hits.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0262407907619034
The New Scientist
Volume 195, Issue 2614, 28 July 2007, Pages 30–34
Climate catastrophe
James Hansen
“NASA physicist James Hansen explains why he thinks a sea level rise of several metres will be a near certainty if greenhouse gas emissions keep increasing unchecked — and why other scientists are reluctant to speak out”
“Near certainty” certainly sounds like greater than 80% probability.
Hansen’s Briefing to the House Select Committee on Energy in 2008:
http://consin.org/view/CHansencongress.pdf
In 2008, as in 1988, he can assert his conclusions have a certainty exceeding 99%: We must drastically cut emissions or there will be catastrophe. Again, that’s greater than an 80% probability.
Hansen does have a long public record of portraying CAGW as a certainty without draconian action to prevent it. Hansen is not a rational scientist by your criteria. Well, he might be in your reality, your universe that somewhat parallels this one, but not here.
Kadaka, most of your quotes were *not* direct quotes of Hansen. And your sole quote of Hansen, did *not* say “CAGW is a certainty.”
Perhaps you might like to try again? Direct quotes of Hansen’s own writings. From verifiable sources. Asserting “CAGW is a certainty.”
Kadaka, we all appreciate the fervency of your belief that these Hansen quotes *must* exist … and not in cherry-picked isolation, but in abundance. But so far, your posts have provided precisely zero of them.
As I said before, so will I say again … perhaps the plain fact of the matter is simply this: Dr. Hansen’s writings have been more circumspect than his reputation here on WUWT would suggest?
A physicist says:
February 11, 2012 at 3:38 am
“Perhaps you might like to try again? Direct quotes of Hansen’s own writings. From verifiable sources. Asserting “CAGW is a certainty.” ”
You seem to know quite a lot about Hansen. What he said and what he didn’t say. What he wrote. What he predicted. Somehow I get the feeling that whoever you are, you seem to be spending a lot of time with Hansen.
I pity you. No, that was a joke. You have deserved your fate.
DirkH, everyone who reads Hansen’s writings appreciates his circumspect usage of the word “certainty”. For example, here are Hansen’s words quoted verbatim:
What is the probability that Hansen’s views are correct?
. Then:
as greater than ~80%. Because uncertainty is ever-present in science.
as less than ~20%. Because uncertainty is ever-present in skepticism.
Hansen’s views being specifically and verbatim: “If burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal, there is a substantial chance we will initiate the runaway greenhouse.”
Let that probability be
Point 1: No rational scientist (not even Hansen!) estimates the probability
Point 2: No rational skeptic estimates the probability
For the preceding simple and common-sense reason — aside from quibbles — Hansen’s views and rational skeptical views regarding CAGW are remarkably similar, eh?
‘a physicist’:
I think this proposed law would apply directly to you, to alarmist climatologists, and in particular to the UN/IPCC.
A physicist: And the common-sense reason being, that excessive confidence has no rational role in strong science *or* strong skepticism, so that both extremes of belief are best avoided.
Kadaka: Your construct has a problem, in that scientists are supposed to be skeptical, and skeptics should approach the issue scientifically, thus the groups overlap.
Kadaka is on the right track only he didn’t go far enough. The construct doesn’t have a problem, rather it is simply meaningless and unintelligible. Science and skepticism are not opposities. And science isn’t a “belief” and neither is skepticism. Science is a process involving skepticism. The *or* in that sentence sets up a meaningless comparison. A Physicist seems to be wanting to claim the mantle of “science” for whatever he happens to believe in and relegate everything else to “not-science”, as if skepticism doesn’t exist within the scientific process but rather outside it. That’s a power grab that no one should acquiesce to. Science is the process. It doesn’t belong to anyone.
Kcom, putting philosophical quibbles aside, an urgent practical question of our time is simply this: What is the likelihood
of catastrophic global global warming arising by the Hansen-style physics of GHG 
GHE 
AGW?
is greater than ~80% are irrationally confident in the science.
is less than ~20% are irrationally confident in their skepticism.
* Those who assert
* Those who assert
There is an ample supply of irrationality on both sides … and *that* is just plain common-sense, eh?
Who elected ‘a physicist’ to set those parameters? That’s not science, that’s Scientology.
There is exactly zero evidence for CAGW. None. But apparently the ‘physicist’ has never encountered the null hypothesis, so he believes he is qualified to arbitrarily divide the population into his imagined cohorts.
The only irrational folks are those who, with no supporting evidence, still believe in CAGW. That’s religious belief, not science. Honest scientists above all are skeptics, and therefore skeptical of CAGW.
From A physicist on February 11, 2012 at 10:56 am:
Might be “urgent” and “practical” on your planet, but not this one. By the assumptions of said proposed Hansen-style physics, especially when codified into computer models, the probability exceeds 80%. Hansen’s own words convey such a level of certainty. However in this actual reality, by this Earth’s geological history, by the discovery of many important negative feedbacks, as real scientific evidence and theories emerge that demonstratively show how the “AGW signal” is small and can be swamped out by other influences on our climate, said proposed Hansen-style physics have been shown to not hold. Thus in this world, in this reality, the question is neither urgent nor practical.
From A physicist on February 11, 2012 at 3:38 am:
Storms of My Grandchildren is searchable on Google Books:
pg 72-73:
“If we continue burning fossil fuels at current rates, ice sheet collapse and sea level rise of at least several meters is a dead certainty.”
Such a rise would be catastrophic, and brought about by AGW per Hansen.
pg 172:
“A SIMPLE, CLEAR, URGENT CONCLUSION leaped out from our research on the appropriate target level of atmospheric carbon dioxide: Coal emissions must be phased out as rapidly as possible or global climate disasters will be a dead certainty.”
Coal emissions (CO₂) -> AGW -> global climate disasters (catastrophes)
pg 269:
“THE ABOVE SCENARIO-with a devastated, sweltering Earth purged of life-may read like far-fetched science fiction. Yet its central hypothesis is a tragic certainty-continued unfettered burning of all fossil fuels will cause the climate system to pass tipping points, such that we hand our children and grandchildren a dynamic situation that is out of their control.”
At this point you’re sounding like a defense attorney: “But did my client specifically swear that he would certainly kill the victim, with a shotgun, on that Tuesday, using buckshot, that was nickel-plated lead of #4 size, and specified the gun was 12 gauge and made by Remington? Well then, which did he specifically swear that it certainly would be, a top-break double, pump, or auto-feeding semi-automatic? Wait, he didn’t swear with certainty which type he would use? Well then, members of the jury, clearly my client is innocent!”
Kadaka, your posts (and many WUWT folks’ posts) continue to dodge the main question: What is a rationally skeptical assessment of the probability
that the Hansen-style physics of GHG 
GHE 
AGW is correct?
, in the event that Hansen’s Seven Key Predictions of Warmism come true in coming decades, that estimate of 
will have to be adjusted soberingly upward.
For a climatological system as complex as our planet, the answer ZERO percent is not rationally skeptical, eh?
Moreover, whatever one’s assessment of
That’s no more than rational common sense, eh?
A physicist says:
February 11, 2012 at 3:32 pm
Kadaka, your posts (and many WUWT folks’ posts) continue to dodge the main question: What is a rationally skeptical assessment of the probability that the Hansen-style physics of GHG GHE AGW is correct?
Since in his recent comments Kadaka has, by the very criteria which you yourself established, proven that your hero and mentor Mr. Hansen is a batshit crazy lunatic, any “rational” assessment of the probability of the correctness of his predictions, skeptical or otherwise, would have to fall somewhere on the low side between slim and none. And, since in nearly every comment you have posted in recent days you have wrapped yourself in Mr. Hansen’s predictions, it suggests to me, again based on your own criteria, that you are not a candidate for sharing a “rational” dialogue. but are instead the perfect potential roommate for Mr. Hansen, in whatever rubber room he ends up in. At least if there is any justice left in the world.