Unprecedented Glacial Chutzpah – just in time for IPCC AR5

From the European Geosciences Union  comes some unprecedented chutzpah with this statement from one of the authors at the end of the press release:

“This study has been conducted with scientific motivations, but if the insight it provides can motivate political decisions to mitigate anthropogenic impact on climate and glacier retreat, it will be an important step forward,”

He even talks about how “Our study is important in the run-up to the next IPCC report”.

arabatel_7111
Antoine Rabatel

Sheesh, what an ego. I’m guessing this kid is linked with some activist NGO, such as Donna Laframboise has pointed out about the IPCC. Meanwhile, it seems some non ego driven science suggests that Andean glacier advance and decline is linked to Pacific ocean cycles: 10,000 years of Andean glacier melt explained

Unprecedented glacier melting in the Andes blamed on climate change

Glaciers in the tropical Andes have been retreating at increasing rate since the 1970s, scientists write in the most comprehensive review to date of Andean glacier observations. The researchers blame the melting on rising temperatures as the region has warmed about 0.7°C over the past 50 years (1950-1994). This unprecedented retreat could affect water supply to Andean populations in the near future. These conclusions are published today in The Cryosphere, an Open Access journal of the European Geosciences Union (EGU).

The international team of scientists – uniting researchers from Europe, South America and the US – shows in the new paper that, since the 1970s, glaciers in tropical Andes have been melting at a rate unprecedented in the past 300 years. Globally, glaciers have been retreating at a moderate pace as the planet warmed after the peak of the Little Ice Age, a cold period lasting from the 16th to the mid-19th century. Over the past few decades, however, the rate of melting has increased steeply in the tropical Andes. Glaciers in the mountain range have shrunk by an average of 30-50% since the 1970s, according to Antoine Rabatel, researcher at the Laboratory for Glaciology and Environmental Geophysics in Grenoble, France, and lead author of the study.

Glaciers are retreating everywhere in the tropical Andes, but the melting is more pronounced for small glaciers at low altitudes, the authors report. Glaciers at altitudes below 5,400 metres have lost about 1.35 metres in ice thickness (an average of 1.2 metres of water equivalent [see note]) per year since the late 1970s, twice the rate of the larger, high-altitude glaciers.

“Because the maximum thickness of these small, low-altitude glaciers rarely exceeds 40 metres, with such an annual loss they will probably completely disappear within the coming decades,” says Rabatel.

The researchers further report that the amount of rainfall in the region did not change much over the past few decades and, therefore, cannot account for changes in glacier retreat. Instead, climate change is to blame for the melting: regional temperatures increased an average of 0.15°C per decade over the 1950-1994 period.

“Our study is important in the run-up to the next IPCC report, coming out in 2013,” says Rabatel. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has pointed out that tropical glaciers are key indicators of recent climate change as they are particularly sensitive to temperature changes. The tropical Andes host 99% of all tropical glaciers in the world, most of them in Peru.

The research is also important to anticipate the future behaviour of Andean glaciers and the impact of their accelerated melting on the region. “The ongoing recession of Andean glaciers will become increasingly problematic for regions depending on water resources supplied by glacierised mountain catchments, particularly in Peru,” the scientists write. Without changes in precipitation, the region could face water shortages in the future.

The Santa River valley in Peru will be most affected, as its hundreds of thousands of inhabitants heavily rely on glacier water for agriculture, domestic consumption, and hydropower. Large cities, such as La Paz in Bolivia, could also face shortages. “Glaciers provide about 15% of the La Paz water supply throughout the year, increasing to about 27% during the dry season,” says Alvaro Soruco, a Bolivian researcher who took part in the study.

In their comprehensive review of Andean glaciers, the scientists synthesised data collected over several decades, some dating as far back as the 1940s. “The methods we used to monitor glacier changes in this region include field observations of glacier mass balance, and remote-sensing measurements based on aerial photographs and satellite images for glacier surface and volume changes,” explains Rabatel.

The study takes into account data collected for glaciers in Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia, covering a total of almost a thousand square kilometres. This corresponds to about 50% of the total area covered by glaciers in the tropical Andes in the early 2000s.

The research was conducted to provide the scientific community with a comprehensive overview of the status of glaciers in the tropical Andes and determine the rate of retreat and identify potential causes for the melting. But the authors hope the results can have a wider impact.

“This study has been conducted with scientific motivations, but if the insight it provides can motivate political decisions to mitigate anthropogenic impact on climate and glacier retreat, it will be an important step forward,” Rabatel concludes.

###

Note

Glacier mass balance is the difference between ice accumulation and ablation (melting and sublimation) in a glacier. Scientists express the annual mass balance in metre water equivalent (m w.e.). A loss of 1.2 m w.e. corresponds to a reduction of about 1.35 metres in ice thickness.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
5 1 vote
Article Rating
56 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
richardscourtney
January 22, 2013 9:54 am

outtheback:
re your post at January 22, 2013 at 9:44 am.
Yes, you are right. And peer review would have rejected the paper from publication on the basis of that fact alone. But this paper was – as its authors admit – for use in the next IPCC Report and, therefore, it was subjected to pal review.
Richard

DonShockley
January 22, 2013 9:54 am

“The researchers blame the melting on rising temperatures as the region has warmed about 0.7°C over the past 50 years (1950-1994).”
Nothing says quality data in a study like not being able to count 1950-1994=45 years (inclusive) and stopping the study just before the non-warming of “the past 18 years”. How do you skip nearly 40% of the stated “past 50 years”?
Step 1: Decide on the results of your study
Step 2: Manipulate the data, throw out what doesn’t fit
Step 3: Publish study via Press Release
Step 4: Duck the FOIA request for the data
Step 5: Blame Big Oil and their paid deniers

Louis Hooffstetter
January 22, 2013 10:19 am

“…the scientists synthesized data collected over several decades, some dating as far back as the 1940s. ”
I call Bullshit! Making up data in a study designed to support an agenda is not science! It is however a hallmark of ‘Climastrology’! I’m just surprised Michael Mann isn’t one of the authors. We need to call Bullshit on these science abortions every time they occur.

Les Johnson
January 22, 2013 10:35 am

Don Easterbrook: To add to what you said, this paper also says that natural variability plays a large part in glacier length. In the case of Mt Baker, kilometer length changes can occur without changes in climate, just year to year variability.
http://earthweb.ess.washington.edu/roe/Publications/RoeONeal_JGlac.pdf
They also say that in the case of Mt Baker, precipitation accounts for 2-4 times more length change than temperature. In other glaciers, this ratio is reversed.

January 22, 2013 10:42 am

Les Johnson says:
January 22, 2013 at 7:59 am
================================================
Great link.
The asymmetry with growth in Antarctica, Alaska, and the Cascades is serious food for thought in light of the asymmetry at LGM. A mile on Manitoba and Siberia unscathed…

Theo Goodwin
January 22, 2013 11:04 am

“The Santa River valley in Peru will be most affected, as its hundreds of thousands of inhabitants heavily rely on glacier water for agriculture, domestic consumption, and hydropower. Large cities, such as La Paz in Bolivia, could also face shortages. “Glaciers provide about 15% of the La Paz water supply throughout the year, increasing to about 27% during the dry season,” says Alvaro Soruco, a Bolivian researcher who took part in the study.”
Can we once and for all get past this idiocy? If you know nothing about rivers, at least look at a map of a river and soak in what you see. Let’s take the Mississippi as an example. Suppose that you traveled to the source of the Mississippi. The source would be that smallest part of the river that is not a tributary. How much of the volume of the river comes from the source? Maybe one tenth of one percent. The same is true in the Andes. The melting of the glaciers will have little impact on the volume of the river because the river is fed mostly by the water sheds that it travels through.
What the author claims might be true for the few people living on the very highest fertile land on the side of the mountain. However, his claim should not be about the river but about that particular water shed.

Jit
January 22, 2013 11:07 am

Playing a little naive melody here, but:
If a glacier is shrinking, then is not the quantity of water arriving down at the foothills higher? And if the glacier is growing, then less water is appearing downstream. If so, then a return to growing glaciers would mean less available water.
Unless the losses are weighted towards sublimation.
Mind you, I would hazard a guess that it would be child’s play to plot glacier losses against deforestation to achieve a similar “link” whether causal or coincidental.

Theo Goodwin
January 22, 2013 11:35 am

Jit says:
January 22, 2013 at 11:07 am
Given the reasoning, such as it is, of the author, you are exactly correct. A shrinking glacier would mean more water downstream and a growing glacier would mean less. Nonsense.
This shows what graduate education has come to in the so-called field of climate science.

DavidG
January 22, 2013 11:46 am

The moderator’s ignorance of astrology is exposed when he tries to compare bogus climate science to it. Given that astrology was developed by virtually every civilization on earth and indeed was the foundation for modern astronomy and science, your intended remarks about bad science don’t fly, but rebound on yourself. Find some other comparison please. If it wasn’t for the early astrological studies we wouldn’t have made it to Kepler, Newton, Galileo. Modern physics, finds the astrological maxim, as above so below, useful and true and as we enter into the new Faster than light paradigm, which means signal non-locality, we will find ,many things previously assumed impossible actually are true. As none of us know the whole truth about the universe, Horatio, we will all find many things that don’t fit into our ‘philosophies’!

Theo Goodwin
January 22, 2013 11:47 am

“The Cryosphere, an Open Access journal of the European Geosciences Union (EGU)”
Obviously, that journal is not peer reviewed. And it has no shame.
Would climate scientists please stop thinking of rivers as irrigation ditches with a manmade source of water at one end? Rivers are the watersheds that they flow through. If the watershed is healthy then the river is healthy. If the river is not healthy then the watershed is not healthy.

Outtheback
January 22, 2013 11:52 am

richardscourtney says:
January 22, 2013 at 9:54 am
We must of course assume that was is meant is that there is now 40 mtrs left. By stating that the glaciers are seldom more then 40 mtrs thick gives the impression that that was the starting point.
The people there may need to adapt over time.
The Homo variations have done nothing but adapt since coming out of the woods and by the look of it that is the only (other then death and tax) certainty we have: Adapt or disappear.

rogerknights
January 22, 2013 12:29 pm

The ablation rate of glaciers is affected not only by temperature, but also by relative humidity, cloudiness, and windiness. Dryer, sunnier, and windier weather encourage sublimation.

TomRude
January 22, 2013 1:16 pm

The big laugh came when I looked at the Figure 1b supposed to represent the atmospheric circulation over the region… “westerlies” and “trades”. That’s all. Not a single synoptic analysis during winter, summer, El Nino and La Nina. Nothing, zip, nada.
A few year old study along the coast of Chili showed that along with higher pressure and colder temperatures affecting the low lying coastal regions in the recent period, mountain regions were experiencing warmer temperatures. It was an obvious case of dynamical warming as a consequence of reinforced MPHs coming from Antarctica, displacing vigorously more warm air along the flank of the coastal mountains…
Rabatel’s Figure 10 showing the evolution of the freezing line elevation, trending upward since the 1970 climatic shift simply likely betrays a similar reinforcement of MPHs displacing warmer air upward, in turn melting local glaciers, hardly a confirmation of CAGW… in fact quite the opposite.
As for the glacier/water source claim, this is a rehash of the IPCC/WWF Himalaya claim that was debunked by geographers such as Martine Tabeaud.
As much as Rabatel’s data are interesting, the assumptions derived from them are preposterous, unsubstanciated and reveal a lack of understanding of meteorological events. Coming from the LGGE, so often critical of Leroux, one can only burst laughing!

January 22, 2013 1:28 pm

Les Johnson says:
To add to what you said, this paper also says that natural variability plays a large part in glacier length. In the case of Mt Baker, kilometer length changes can occur without changes in climate, just year to year variability.
dje: THE FLUCTUATION OF MT BAKER GLACIERS IS TIED DIRECTLY TO TEMPERATURE AND THE PDO AND ARE THUS GOOD PALEOTHERMOMETERS. (See Easterbrook, 2011)
http://earthweb.ess.washington.edu/roe/Publications/RoeONeal_JGlac.pdf
dje: They also say that in the case of Mt Baker, precipitation accounts for 2-4 times more length change than temperature. In other glaciers, this ratio is reversed.
DJE: THIS IS ESSENTIALLY A MODEL STUDY. I DON’T UNDERSTAND WHY THEY DON’T JUST USE ACTUAL SNOWFALL AND TEMPERATURE RECORDS, WHICH ARE READILY AVAILABLE. THESE RECORDS CONTAIN REAL DATA, NOT ASSUMED, SIMULATED MODEL INPUT.

Jimbo
January 22, 2013 2:12 pm

“Unprecedented glacier melting in the Andes blamed on climate change”

Unprecedented glacier melting in the Alps. Is it cherry picking season yet?

The stupefying pace of glacier melt in the 1940s
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/24/the-stupefying-pace-of-glacier-melt-in-the-1940s/

Climate Ace
January 22, 2013 2:16 pm

[snip -rewrite that without the snark -mod]

Climate Ace
January 22, 2013 2:23 pm

TG
While your points about watershed have some validity, the significant point about glacial meltwater is the season during which it flows. It is the growing season and thus the irrigation season. This may, or may not, depending on where the glaciers are, coincide with peak rainfall and runoff. If not, then glacial meltwater is an especially valuable economic component of a watershed’s water stocks and flows.
I thought that the suggestion to put dams where glaciers used (upstring) to be is not without merit.
Of course the news cameras would have fun filming footage of advancing glaciers destroying dam walls.
Spectacular stuff.

Theo Goodwin
January 22, 2013 3:42 pm

Climate Ace says:
January 22, 2013 at 2:23 pm
TG
“While your points about watershed have some validity, the significant point about glacial meltwater is the season during which it flows. It is the growing season and thus the irrigation season.”
The contribution of glacial melt to the volume of water found in a river is important for maybe the first 50 miles. At the point of 50 miles or so, there will begin another watershed that will most likely contribute far more water to the river than the glacier ever could. Given a short river of, say, 300 miles length, we are talking about as many as six different watersheds. To make inferences from glacier flow to the volume of water found in the entire river is to ignore the other watersheds and is quite ludicrous. If your topic is glacial melt then your claims should be restricted to the first one or two watersheds.
A glacier is just one watershed among many for a given river and the level of glacial melt is no more nor less important than, say, changes in cultivation practices in the other watersheds. Glaciers are dramatic and make good propaganda, of course.

Theo Goodwin
January 22, 2013 3:54 pm

DavidG says:
January 22, 2013 at 11:46 am
You are not going to revive astrology here. Astrologers’ forecasts or whatever you want to call them are not falsifiable. In addition, the theories used by astrologers’ to make forecasts do not use accepted physical theory in making the forecasts. Finally, all astrology is based on Aristotle’s claim that there is an “unmoved mover” who sets in motion the planets. We know that last one is false, right?

January 22, 2013 3:54 pm

The other Green…
Look at what’s turning Davos delegates green with envy:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-22/what-really-matters-davos

sophocles
January 22, 2013 4:59 pm

Advance, retreat … so what?
Isn’t that what glaciers do?
The Franz Josef Glacier (New Zealand) started advancing again in 1997, just when it was supposed to be getting hotter.
In 2008, it started retreating, just when it was supposed to be starting to get a little cooler (according to Dr P Jones of UEA in an interview with the BBC on 5th Feb 2008, it was cooling at a rate of 0.3 degrees per decade then).
Advance, retreat … so what?
It’s what glaciers do …

Lil Fella from OZ
January 22, 2013 5:48 pm

Unless I am mistaken, it is extremely difficult to make a lot of food without water and sunlight. These ‘super environmentalist’ will have to invent something to replace this old idea or humans are going to die in greater numbers. Oh, I nearly overlooked the fact that this is what their long term elitist view wants.

Climate Ace
January 22, 2013 8:23 pm

TG
The contribution of glacial melt to the volume of water found in a river is important for maybe the first 50 miles. At the point of 50 miles or so, there will begin another watershed that will most likely contribute far more water to the river than the glacier ever could. Given a short river of, say, 300 miles length, we are talking about as many as six different watersheds. To make inferences from glacier flow to the volume of water found in the entire river is to ignore the other watersheds and is quite ludicrous. If your topic is glacial melt then your claims should be restricted to the first one or two watersheds.
There are such huge variations in watersheds, regiona climates, drainage systems and flow regimes that it is possible to argue almost anything from general principles. So, in a sense, both our points of view are quite sustainable in principle.
This includes the critical importance of glacial meltwater during the summer irrigation season where that irrigation season occurs during the local dry season.

Theo Goodwin
January 22, 2013 9:03 pm

Climate Ace says:
January 22, 2013 at 8:23 pm
You have addressed not one word that I wrote. Do not flatter yourself by responding to me again.

Marc
January 22, 2013 10:14 pm

“Sheesh, what an ego.” -AW
Hard to know what to say in response to that.